[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30661-30663]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92103; File No. SR-BX-2021-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Options
7, Section 1, ``General Provisions'' and Section 2, ``BX Options
Market-Fees and Rebates''

June 3, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 24, 2021, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Options 7, Section 1, ``General
Provisions'' and Section 2, ``BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend BX's Pricing Schedule at BX Options
7, Section 1, ``General Provisions'' and Section 2, ``BX Options
Market-Fees and Rebates.'' Each change will be described below.
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange proposes to relocate rule text, without change,
related to the Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within
Options 7, Section 2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions.
This proposed change is non-substantive. The Exchange believes that
this rule text is more appropriate for Section 1 which describes
general provisions.
Options 7, Section 2
    The Exchange will begin offering its Block Order Mechanism \3\ and
Customer Cross Order \4\ on June 1, 2021.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
assess no fees and pay no rebates for orders entered into the Block
Order Mechanism or Customer Cross Orders. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to create a header within Options 7, Section 2(6) [sic] which
states, ``Block Order Mechanism per Options 3, Section 11 and Customer
Cross Orders per to Options 3, Section 12'' and note that ``Orders
executed in the Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Orders are not
subject to fees or rebates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Block Order Mechanism is for single leg transactions
only. Block Orders are orders for fifty (50) contracts or more. See
Securities Release Act No. 89759 (September 3, 2020), 85 FR 55877
(September 3, 2020) [sic] (SR-BX-2020-023).
    \4\ See Options Technical Update #2021-2.
    \5\ A Customer Cross Order is an order type within Options 3,
Section 7(a)(10). A Customer Cross Order is comprised of two Public
Customer Orders automatically executed upon entry provided that the
execution is at or between the best bid and offer on the Exchange
and (i) is not at the same price as a Public Customer Order on the
Exchange's limit order book and (ii) will not trade through the
NBBO. See Securities Release Act No. 89476 (August 4, 2020), 85 FR
48274 (August 10, 2020) (SR-BX-2020-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text within Options
7, Section 2(1), which directs Participants to applicable pricing, to
also provide that ``Orders executed in the Block Order Mechanism and
Customer Cross Orders are not subject to the pricing in Options 7,
Section 2(1), instead, these orders are subject to the pricing within
Options 7, Section 2(6).'' The addition of this rule text will serve as
a guidepost to Participants to easily locate the pricing for the Block
Order Mechanism.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78 f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to BX's Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options securities
transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that
market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been
recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes
that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the
Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section
2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change, is
reasonable as the Exchange is simply relocating the rule text within a
section which describes general provisions.
    The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the
Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section
2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the rule text will
continue to apply uniformly to all Participants.
Options 7, Section 2
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer
Cross Order pricing is reasonable. On June 1, 2021, the Exchange will
begin offering the Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Orders to
Participants and assess no fees and not pay any rebates for orders
entered into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross Orders. The
Exchange's proposal will provide Participants notification of its Block
Order and Customer Cross Order pricing. The proposal to add rule text
within Options 7, Section 2(1) will serve as a guidepost to
Participants to easily locate the pricing for the Block Order Mechanism
and Customer Cross Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer
Cross Order pricing is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as no
Participant would be subject to any fees or be paid any rebates for
orders executed into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross
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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Inter-Market Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees 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.
Intra-Market Competition
Options 7, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the
Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section
2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change,
does not impose an undue burden on competition as the rule text will
continue to apply uniformly to all Participants.
Options 7, Section 2
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer
Cross Order pricing does not impose an undue burden on competition as
no Participant would be subject to any fees or be paid any rebates for
orders executed into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross
Orders.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2021-025 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-BX-2021-025. 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; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2021-025 and
should be submitted on or before June 30, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12032 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 186 (Thursday, September 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60115-60117]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0537]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, New Richmond, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone for all
navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 452.0 to MM
454.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters near New Richmond, OH, during a demolition
project. Entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within this zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0537 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Matthew Roberts, Waterways
Department Marine Safety Detachment Cincinnati, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On July 22, 2020, MCM Management Corp notified the Coast Guard that
it will be conducting a demolition from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on October 16,
2020, as part of the process to remove the structures of the Beckjord
Power Plant. The demolition will occur to stuctures on and close to the
waterway. Hazards from demolition include low visibility from the smoke
and or noise hazards from the implosion. The Captain of the Port Sector
Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with the demolition would be a safety concern for anyone within the two
mile river closure.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters from Mile Marker 452.0 to 454.0 before,
during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33
U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 9
a.m. on October 16, 2020. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters from Mile Marker 452.0 to 454.0 on the Ohio River bank to bank.
The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7
a.m. to 9 a.m. demolition. No vessel or person would be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Entry into the
regulated area will be prohibited from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on October 16,
2020, from Ohio River MM 452.0 to MM 454.0, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated
representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue written Local
Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the temporary safety zone that is in place.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry into the regulated area.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0537 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0537   Safety Zone; Ohio River, New Richmond, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
navigable waters of the Ohio River between MM 452.0 to MM 454.0 in New
Richmond, OH.

    (b) Effective Period. This temporary safety zone will be in effect
on October 16, 2020.
    (c) Period of enforcement. This temporary safety zone will be
enforced from 7 a.m. through 9 a.m. on October 16, 2020.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a
designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio
channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners and the Local Notice to Mariners of the enforcement period for
the temporary safety zone as well as any changes in the planned
schedule.

    Dated: September 2, 2020.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2020-19852 Filed 9-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P