[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22546-22550]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10261]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83201; File No. SR-C2-2018-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
its Fees Schedule, Including Connectivity Fees, in Connection with its
Technology Migration

May 9, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 27, 2018, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
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 its Fees Schedule in connection with
the technology migration of C2 onto the options platform of the
Exchange's affiliated options exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'' or ``EDGX Options'') and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or
``BZX Options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.,
which is also the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
Options''), acquired EDGX and BZX and its affiliated exchanges, Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'').
C2 intends to migrate its technology onto the same trading platform as
BZX, BYX, EDGA and BZX (``Affiliated Exchanges'') on May 14, 2018 (the
``migration''). The Exchange proposes to amend certain fees in the Fees
Schedule and adopt new connectivity fees, effective May 1, 2018.

Physical Connectivity
    A physical port is utilized by a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') or
non-TPH to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses fees
for Network Access Ports for these physical connections to the
Exchange. Specifically, TPHs and non-TPHs can elect to connect to C2's
trading system via either a 1 gigabit per second (``Gbps'') Network
Access Port or a 10 Gbps Network Access Port. The Exchange currently
assesses a monthly fee of $500 per port for 1 Gbps Network Access Ports
and a monthly fee of $1,000 per port for 10 Gbps Network Access Ports.
Through June 30, 2018, C2 market participants will continue to have the
ability to connect to C2's trading system via the current Network
Access Ports. For the month of May 2018, the Exchange will continue to
assess the current fee for any Network Access Port a TPH or non-TPH
uses during the month of May.
    Effective May 14, 2018, in connection with the migration, TPHs and
non-TPHs may alternatively elect to connect to C2 via new Physical
Ports.\3\ The new Physical Ports will similarly allow TPHs and non-TPHs
the ability to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located and TPHs and non-TPHs will have the
option to connect via 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps Physical Ports. The Exchange
proposes to assess a monthly fee of $2,000 per port for 1 Gbps Physical
Ports and a monthly fee of $7,000 per port for 10 Gbps Physical Ports.
The new Physical Port fees will be prorated based on the remaining
trading days in the calendar month. The Exchange notes that the new
Physical Ports may also be used to connect to BZX, BYX, EDGX, and EDGA.
The Exchange proposes to provide that market participants will only be
assessed a single fee for any Physical Port that also accesses these
exchanges.\4\ The Exchange will pass-through in full any fees or costs
in excess of $1,000 incurred by the Exchange to complete a cross-
connect between exchanges. The Exchange notes that the proposed
physical connectivity ports and corresponding fees are identical to the
ports and fees assessed by its Affiliated Exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As previously noted, market participants will continue to
have the option of connecting to C2 via a 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps Network
Access Port and would be assessed current rates of $500 and $1,000
per port, respectively.
    \4\ For example, if a market participant uses only one 10 Gbps
port to connect to both EDGX and C2, the market participant would
only be assessed one monthly fee of $7,000.
    \5\ See Cboe EDGA U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, Physical
Connectivity Fees; Cboe EDGX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule,
Physical Connectivity Fees; Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee
Schedule, Physical Connectivity Fees; Cboe BYX U.S. Equities
Exchange Fee Schedule, Physical Connectivity Fees; Cboe EDGX Options
Exchange Fee Schedule, Physical Connectivity Fees; and Cboe BZX
Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Physical Connectivity Fees
(collectively, ``Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical Connectivity
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend its login fees. Currently, C2
market participants may access Cboe Command via either a CMI or a FIX
Port, depending on how their systems are configured. The Exchange
currently assesses monthly fees for each CMI and FIX Login ID a market
participant has. Specifically, the Exchange assesses $550 per Login ID,
per month for CMI Login IDs and FIX Login IDs. Effective May 14, 2018,
market participants will no longer be able to use CMI and FIX Login
IDs. Rather, the Exchange will utilize a variety of logical
connectivity ports as further described below. Similar to the legacy
CMI and FIX Login IDs, a logical port provides users with the ability
within the Exchange's system to accomplish a specific function through
a connection, such as order entry, data receipt, or access to
information. In light of the upcoming discontinuation of CMI and FIX
Login IDs, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees associated with
the login IDs effective May 1, 2018 and adopt the below pricing for
logical connectivity in it [sic] place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Service                          Cost per month
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logical Ports (BOE, FIX, Drop)............  $650 per port
Bulk BOE Ports 1-5........................  1,500 per port
Bulk BOE Ports >5.........................  2,500 per port
Purge ports...............................  750 per port
GRP Ports.................................  650/primary (A or C Feed)
Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server Ports.....  650/set of primary (A or C
                                             feed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Logical Ports (BOE, FIX, Drop): The new Logical Ports represents
ports established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for
trading purposes. Each Logical Port established is specific to a TPH or
non-TPH and grants that TPH or non-TPH the ability to operate a
specific application, such as order entry (FIX and BOE Ports) or drop
copies (Drop Ports). Logical Port fees are limited to Logical Ports in
the Exchange's primary data center and no Logical Port fees are
assessed for redundant secondary data center ports. The Exchange
proposes to set the monthly port fee at $650 per port. Each BOE or FIX
Logical Port will incur the logical port fee indicated in the table
above when used to enter up to 20,000 orders per trading day per
logical port as measured on average in a single month. Each incremental
usage of up to 20,000 per day per logical port will incur an additional
logical port fee of $650 per month. Incremental usage will be
determined on a monthly basis based on the average orders per day
entered in a single month across all of a market participant's
subscribed BOE and FIX Logical Ports.\6\ The Exchange believes that the
pricing implications of going beyond 20,000 orders per trading day per
Logical Port encourage users to mitigate message traffic as necessary.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee of $650 per port is in line
with the fee assessed for similar ports on BZX Options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For May 2018, average daily order quantities used to
determine incremental usage will be determined based on the number
of trading days between May 14th and May 31st.
    \7\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options Logical
Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOE Bulk Logical Ports: Post-migration, the Exchange will also
offer BOE Bulk Logical Ports, which provide users with the ability to
submit single and bulk order messages to enter, modify, or cancel
orders designated as Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or
GTD with an expiration time on that trading day. As indicated above,
BOE Bulk Logical Ports are assessed $1,500 per port, per month for the
first 5 BOE Bulk Logical Ports and thereafter assessed $2,500 per port,
per month for each additional BOE Bulk Logical Port. Each Bulk BOE
Logical Port will incur the logical port fee indicated in the table
above when used to enter up to 30,000,000 orders per trading day per
logical port as measured on average in a single month. Each incremental
usage of up to 30,000,000 orders per day per BOE Bulk Logical Port will
incur an additional logical port fee of $2,500 per month. Incremental
usage will be determined on a monthly basis based on the average orders
per day entered in a single month across all of a market participant's
subscribed BOE Bulk Logical Ports.\8\ The Exchange believes that the
pricing implications of going beyond 30,000,000 orders per trading day
per BOE Bulk Logical Port encourage users to mitigate message

traffic as necessary. The Exchange notes that the proposed BOE Bulk
Logical Port fees are similar to the fees assessed for these ports by
BZX Options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For May 2018, average daily order quantities used to
determine incremental usage will be determined based on the number
of trading days between May 14th and May 31st.
    \9\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options Logical
Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Purge Ports: As part of the migration, C2 will be introducing Purge
Ports to provide TPHs additional risk management and open order control
functionality. The proposed ports are designed to assist TPHs, in the
management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if the
TPH is dealing with a large number of options. Particularly, Purge
Ports will allow TPHs to submit a cancelation for all open orders, or a
subset thereof, across multiple sessions under the same Executing Firm
ID (``EFID''). As indicated in the table above, the Exchange proposes
to assess a monthly charge of $750 per Purge Port. The Exchange notes
that the proposed fee is identical to the fee assessed by BZX Options
and EDGX Options for Purge Ports.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Cboe EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options
Logical Port Fees; and Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server and GRP Ports: In connection with
the migration, the Exchange will also offer Multicast PITCH/Top Spin
Server and GRP ports and proposes to assess $750 per month, per port.
Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports are used to request
and receive a retransmission of data from the Exchange's Multicast
PITCH/Top data feed. The Exchange's Multicast PITCH/Top data feed is
available from two primary feeds, identified as the ``A feed'' and the
``C feed'', which contain the same information but differ only in the
way such feeds are received. The Exchange also offers two redundant
feeds, identified as the ``B feed'' and the ``D feed.'' All secondary
feed Multicast PITCH/Top Spin Server and GRP Ports will be provided for
redundancy at no additional cost. The Exchange notes that the proposed
fee is in line with the fee assessed for the same ports on BZX
Options.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe BZX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options Logical
Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide for each of the logical
connectivity fees that new requests will be prorated for the first
month of service. Cancellation requests are billed in full month
increments as firms are required to pay for the service for the
remainder of the month, unless the session is terminated within the
first month of service. The Exchange notes that the proration policy is
the same on its Affiliated Exchanges.\12\ The Exchange also proposes to
make clear in the Fees Schedule that port fees for BOE, FIX, BOE Bulk
and Drop ports will be assessed the full month rates for May for ports
available for use on the new trading platform beginning May 14, 2018.
The port fees for BOE, FIX, BOE BULK and Drop ports added on or after
May 15, 2018, will be pro-rated. The Exchange notes that BOE, FIX, Drop
and BOE Bulk ports offer similar functionality as current CMI and FIX
Login Ids. As such, in lieu of assessing the current CMI and FIX Login
Id fees for the month of May, the Exchange proposes to assess the
proposed Logical Ports and BOE Bulk Port fees at the full rate for the
month of May for any of these ports subscribed to on the date of the
migration (May 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access Fees
    Currently, the Exchange assesses $5,000 per month for a Market-
Maker Permit and $1,000 per month for an Electronic Access Permit.
Market-Maker Permits entitle the holder to act as a Market-Maker and
also provides an appointment credit, quote and order bandwidth
allowance and a login allowance. Electronic Access Permits entitle the
holder to access the Exchange and also provides an order entry
bandwidth allowance and a login allowance. The Exchange notes that
post-Migration, bandwidth allocation and logins will not be tied to a
Permit, and as such, TPHs will no longer need to have multiple Permits
for each type of Permit (i.e., multiple Market-Maker Permits and/or and
Electronic Access Permits).\13\ The Exchange therefore proposes to
provide that TPHs will only be assessed the monthly fee for each type
of Permit once (e.g., a TPH that holds only two Market-Maker Permits
during the month of May would be assessed a total of $5,000 as and for
Permit fees in May).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that TPHs do not need more than one
Market-Maker Permit to accommodate all of the available appointments
(i.e., a Market-Maker may have appointments in each class offered on
C2 and still be below the appointment cost of one Trading Permit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Packets
    As described above, post-migration, the Exchange will utilize a
variety of logical ports. Part of this functionality is similar to
bandwidth packets currently available on C2. Bandwidth packets restrict
the maximum number of orders and quotes per second. Post-migration,
market participants may similarly have multiple Logical Ports and/or
BOE Bulk Ports as they may have bandwidth packets to accommodate their
order and quote entry needs. As such, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate its current Supplemental Bandwidth Packet fees, effective May
1, 2018. The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing implications
of going beyond specified bandwidth described above in the logical
connectivity fees section will be able to otherwise mitigate message
traffic as necessary.
CAS Servers
    By way of background, in order to connect to Cboe Command, which
allows a TPH to trade on the C2 System, a TPH must connect via either a
CMI or FIX interface (depending on the configuration of the TPH's own
systems). For TPHs that connect via a CMI interface, they must use CMI
CAS Servers. In order to ensure that a CAS Server is not overburdened
by quoting activity for Market-Makers, the Exchange currently allots
each Market-Maker a certain number of CASs (in addition to the shared
backups) based on the amount of quoting bandwidth that they have. Post-
migration, the Exchange will no longer use CAS Servers. In light of the
upcoming elimination of CAS Servers, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
the CAS Server allotment table and extra CAS Server fee, effective May
1, 2018.
Exchange Data Reports
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Exchange Data Reports Fees as it
no longer wishes to assess such fees. The Exchange notes that requests
for reports and data from TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be treated
in a fair and efficient manner.
Miscellaneous Changes
    The Exchange proposes to renumber the sections in the Fees Schedule
in light of the elimination of certain sections (e.g., Bandwidth Packet
Fees and Exchange Data Reports). The Exchange also proposes to
eliminate the Firm Designated Examining Authority Fee. The Exchange
notes that C2 is not a Designated Examining Authority and as such the
fee could not be assessed to firms. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
the fee from the Fees Schedule to avoid potential confusion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of

Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\
which provides that Exchange rules may provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities. Additionally, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physical Connectivity
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess Network Access Port fees through May as market
participants will still be able to utilize these ports throughout the
month of May and the fee will apply to all TPHs and non-TPHs who use a
Network Access Port. The Exchange believes the proposed post-migration
Physical Port fees are reasonable because the Exchange is expending
significant resources setting up physical connectivity in connection
with the migration and will have ongoing costs associated with
maintaining connectivity. The Exchange also notes that the proposed
amounts are in line with the costs of physical connectivity at its
Affiliated Exchanges.\17\ Indeed, the Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable and in the interest of the public and investors to harmonize
the Exchange's connectivity options and connectivity fees once the
Exchange is on a common platform of its Affiliated Exchanges. The
Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a Physical Port fee only once if it connects
with another affiliate exchange because only one port is being used and
the Exchange does not wish to charge multiple fees for the same port.
The Exchange also believes it's reasonable to pass-through in full any
fees or costs in excess of $1,000.00 incurred by the Exchange to
complete a cross-connect, because the Exchange is still subsidizing
costs to enable cross-connects, just not amounts in excess of $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Physical
Connectivity Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical Connectivity
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate certain fees
associated with legacy options for connecting to the Exchange and to
replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to
the Exchange that are similar to those offered at its Affiliated
Exchanges. In particular, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to no
longer assess fees for CMI and FIX Login IDs because the Login IDs will
be retired and obsolete upon migration and because the Exchange is
proposing to replace them with fees associated with the new logical
connectivity options. The Exchange believes the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to market participants. The Exchange believes it's reasonable to assess
the proposed fees for each of the new logical connectivity ports
described above as the proposed fees help recoup costs setting up
logical connectivity and also enables the Exchange to continue to
maintain and improve its market technology and services. Additionally,
the Exchange notes the proposed fees are the same as, or in line with,
the fees assessed on its Affiliated Exchanges for similar
connectivity.\18\ As noted above, the Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable and in the interest of the public and investors to harmonize
the Exchange's logical connectivity options and corresponding
connectivity fees once the Exchange is on a common platform as its
Affiliated Exchanges. The proposed logical connectivity fees are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same fees to all market participants that use the same
respective connectivity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access Fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess an access fee only once for each kind of
Permit, notwithstanding the number of Permits a TPH currently holds,
because TPHs will be paying lower fees for access and the proposed
change will apply uniformly to all TPHs. Additionally, the Exchange
notes that currently, TPHs request additional Permits because of
bandwidth and/or login needs. As described above, upon migration on May
14, 2018, bandwidth and logins will no longer be tied to Permits and as
such, the need to hold multiple permits will be obsolete. Through May
14, 2018 however, TPHs may still need additional Permits and the
Exchange does not wish to charge for those additional Permits.
Bandwidth Packets and CMI CAS Server Fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate Supplemental
Bandwidth Packet fees and the CMI CAS Server fee because TPHs will not
pay fees for these connectivity options and because bandwidth packets
and CAS Servers will be retired and obsolete upon the upcoming
migration. The Exchange believes that even though it will be
discontinuing Supplemental Bandwidth Packets, the proposed incremental
pricing for Logical Ports and BOE Bulk Ports will continue to encourage
users to mitigate message traffic. The proposed change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all
TPHs.
Exchange Data Reports
    The Exchange believes eliminating fees for Exchange Data Reports is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs and
non-TPHs no longer have to pay fees for these reports and it applies to
TPHs and non-TPHs uniformly. As noted above, requests for reports and
data from TPHs and non-TPHs will continue to be treated in a fair and
efficient manner.
Miscellaneous Changes
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to renumber the
sections in light of the elimination of certain sections (e.g.,
Bandwidth Packet Fees and Exchange Data Reports) alleviates potential
confusion. Similarly, the Exchange believes deleting the Firm
Designated Examining Authority Fee from the Fees Schedule alleviates
confusion as it eliminates a fee that is moot because it cannot be
charged (as discussed, C2 is not a Designated Examining Authority). The
alleviation of confusion removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a 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 does not
believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure
from pricing offered by the Exchange's affiliates. Additionally, TPHs
may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of TPHs or
competing venues to maintain their competitive

standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that fees for
connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow
among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for
connectivity, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete
for order flow rather than burdening competition. The Exchange also
does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket
competition as it would apply to all TPHs and non-TPHs equally.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2018-006 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-C2-2018-006. 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-C2-2018-006 and should be submitted on
or before June 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10261 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48815-48816]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Black Hawk Exploration, Composite Technology
Corporation, Forza Environmental Building Products, Inc., Hotcloud
Mobile, Inc., ImmunoBiotics, Inc., and SpatiaLight, Inc; Order of
Suspension of Trading

August 14, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Black Hawk Exploration because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended August 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Composite Technology Corporation because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Forza Environmental Building Products, Inc. because it has not filed
any periodic

reports since the period ended February 28, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Hotcloud Mobile, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended July 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
ImmunoBiotics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
SpatiaLight, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 14, 2014, through 11:59
p.m. EDT on August 27, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19617 Filed 8-14-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66196]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26854]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68111; File No. SR-OCC-2012-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice To Establish the
Legal and Operational Framework for Providing Central Clearing of OTC
Index Options on the S&P 500 Index That Are Negotiated Bilaterally in
the Over-the-Counter Market and Submitted to OCC for Clearance

October 26, 2012.
    On August 30, 2012, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change and Advance Notice SR-OCC-2012-14 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on September 18, 2012 \3\ and the
Advance Notice was published for comment in the Federal Register on
September 27, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67835 (September 12,
2012), 77 FR 57602 (September 18, 2012).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67906 (September 21,
2012), 77 FR 59431 (September 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \5\ provides
that changes proposed in an Advance Notice may be implemented if the
Commission does not object to the proposed changes within 60 days of
the later of (i) the date that the Advance Notice was filed with the
Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested
by the Commission is received, unless extended as described below. The
date that is 60 days from the time of the filing is October 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision
Act,\6\ the Commission may extend the review period for an additional
60 days if the proposed changes raise novel or complex issues, subject
to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written
notice of the extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it is appropriate to extend the review period
for the Advance Notice. In particular, the Advance Notice is novel
because OCC does not currently provide clearing services for OTC
products and because no registered clearing agency currently provides
clearing services for OTC S&P 500 Index options.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to 806(e)(1)(H) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\7\ extends the review period for an
additional 60 days so that the Commission shall have until December 28,
2012 to issue an objection or non-objection of the Advance Notice (File
No. SR-OCC-2012-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26854 Filed 11-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30753-30755]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0747]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways
EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its proposed rule that would
establish a permanent regulated navigation area (RNA) on portions of
the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways in Commencement Bay, Tacoma,
Washington. The RNA would protect the seabed in portions of those
waterways that are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats superfund cleanup
remediation efforts. To more effectively protect those efforts, the
Coast Guard is revising the proposed rule by slightly expanding the
boundaries of the proposed RNA.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 2, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before July 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-0747 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call ENS Ashley Wanzer, Waterways Management, Sector Seattle,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0747), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2008-0747'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2008-0747'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before July 2, 2010 using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterways EPA

Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA'' in the Federal
Register (73 FR 162, Aug. 20, 2008), docket number USCG-2008-0747. We
received one comment on the NPRM.

Background and Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed RNA is to preserve the integrity of the
clean sediment caps placed over certain areas of the Thea Foss and
Wheeler-Osgood Waterways as part of the EPA's Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats superfund cleanup remediation process in those
waters. These caps consist of approximately three feet of sand and
gravel, designed to withstand activities common to a working
waterfront, covering approximately 30 acres of sediment in the
waterway.

Discussion of Comments and Change

    During the comment period for the NPRM, the Coast Guard received
one comment from the City of Tacoma, which requested to be included in
any consultation over the grant of a waiver under the proposed RNA. We
have revised the proposed waiver provisions in this supplemental NPRM
(SNPRM) to eliminate details of the waiver decision process that are
inappropriate for regulatory text and subject to intergovernmental or
other agreements. At the same time, we restate our commitment to avoid
granting any waiver that could unduly jeopardize the superfund site
remediation efforts that underlie the whole concept of the proposed
RNA, and we would consult with the City of Tacoma and stakeholders as
needed and appropriate to safeguard those efforts.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed RNA would prohibit activities that could disturb the
seabed or the sediment caps, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, or
spudding. It would not affect transit or navigation of the area. In
this SNPRM, we have slightly expanded the boundaries initially proposed
for the RNA, to include buffer zones around EPA's sediment caps. We
have also simplified the proposed waiver provisions, while restating
our intention that any waivers be consistent with the EPA's remediation
efforts in the area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This expectation is based
on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a
small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic,
and prohibited activities are not routine for the designated areas.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. This rule would affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to anchor, dredge, spud, lay cable or disturb the
seabed in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not
have a significant economic impact on small entities due to its minimal
restrictive area and ample opportunities for avoiding this region.
    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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact 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.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    This proposed rule involves no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. As a proposal to
establish a regulated navigation area, this rule meets the criteria
outlined in paragraph (34)(g).
    Comments on this section will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded
from further environmental review.

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

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1329 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1329  Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterways EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation
areas:
    (1) All waters of the Thea Foss Waterway bounded by a line
connecting the following points:

Point 1: 47[deg]15'43.49'' N, 122[deg]26'23.29'' W;
Point 2: 47[deg]15'44.59'' N, 122[deg]26'19.89'' W;
Point 3: 47[deg]15'39.01'' N, 122[deg]26'15.99'' W;
Point 4: 47[deg]15'37.91'' N, 122[deg]26'19.39'' W;
[Datum: NAD 1983].

    (2) All waters of the Thea Foss Waterway bounded by a line
connecting the following points:

Point 1: 47[deg]15'22.74'' N, 122[deg]25'57.15'' W;
Point 2: 47[deg]15'22.52'' N, 122[deg]26'0.18'' W;
Point 3: 47[deg]15'18.05'' N, 122[deg]25'59.48'' W;
Point 4: 47[deg]15'18.26'' N, 122[deg]25'56.45'' W;
[Datum: NAD 1983].

    (3) All waters of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways south
of a line bounded by connecting the following points:

Point 1: 47[deg]15'13.94'' N, 122[deg]26'05.56'' W;
Point 2: 47[deg]15'15.01'' N, 122[deg]25'55.14'' W.
[Datum: NAD 1983].

    (b) Regulations.
    (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from activities that
would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling,
spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of
the sediment caps installed in the designated regulated navigation
area, pursuant to the remediation efforts of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and others in the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood
Waterways EPA superfund cleanup site. Vessels may otherwise transit or
navigate within this area without reservation.
    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the Thea Foss or Wheeler-Osgood Waterways
superfund sites, provided that the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound
(COTP), is given advance notice of those activities by the EPA.
    (c) Waiver. Upon written request stating the need and proposed
conditions of the waiver, and any proposed precautionary measures, the
COTP may authorize a waiver from this section if the COTP determines
that the activity for which the waiver is sought can take place without
undue risk to the remediation efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The COTP will consult with EPA in making this
determination when necessary and practicable.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-12978 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 68859]
[DOCID:fr29de09-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1862-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-1862-DR), dated
December 9, 2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated December 9, 2009, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from severe storms and flooding
associated with Tropical Depression Ida and a nor'easter beginning
on November 11, 2009, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    The counties of Halifax, Isle of Wight, King and Queen,
Northampton, and Surry and the independent cities of Chesapeake,
Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, and Virginia
Beach for Public Assistance.
    All jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Virginia are
eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-30728 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66168-66170]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63145; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-143]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Active SQF Port Fee

October 21, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 15, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(``SEC'' or ``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 fee calculations for the Active SQF
Port Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Active SQF
Port Fee calculation to account for a new version of the Specialized
Quote Feed (``SQF'') interface, which was recently released by the
Exchange. The Exchange is amending the Active SQF Port Fee calculation
so that member organizations not be assessed port fees for use of the
prior version of the interface (SQF 5.0) while transitioning to (and
paying for) the new version (SQF 6.0).
    In a given month, active SQF ports are ports that receive inbound
quotes at any time within that month. SQF is an interface that enables
specialists, Streaming Quote Traders (SQTs'') \3\ and Remote Streaming
Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \4\ to connect and send quotes into Phlx
XL.\5\ The Exchange released SQF 6.0 on October 11, 2010. The Exchange
anticipates that member organizations will utilize both SQF 5.0 and SQF
6.0 for a period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \4\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, quoting participants (users of SQF 5.0) do not receive
reports of executions against their quote or other information that is
relevant to their quoting application over SQF 5.0. SQF 6.0 provides
more information than SQF 5.0. SQF 6.0 increases efficiency by allowing
member organizations to access, information such as execution reports
and other relevant data through a single feed, rather than through
accessing multiple feeds, which was necessary under SQF 5.0.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Member organizations that have written interfaces to the
PHLX system could use the administrative data to determine the
current status of the Exchange's market for a particular option. For
example, this data would show which symbols are trading on the PHLX,
the current state of an options symbol (i.e., open for trading,
trading, halted or closed), as well as similar information regarding
complex order strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This administrative data will also include the definition of
complex order strategies.\7\ Auction notifications are available on SQF
6.0.\8\ The new interface, SQF 6.0, will also contain execution report
messages, which are not contained in SQF 5.0.\9\ Other data is also
available on SQF 6.0.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1080.08.
    \8\ A member organization's quoting application can receive
these notifications over the same interface it sends quotes to the
Exchange, SQF, and can now use the data to respond to auctions
quickly and efficiently. This data is not sent as a quote to the
market because it represents interest that is not immediately
executable or, in the case of complex orders, represents a complex
strategy which is not disseminated by the Options Price Reporting
Authority.
    \9\ The Exchange currently provides Exchange members with
execution reports through two interfaces. Execution reports are made
available to all exchange participants on a Risk Management Feed
known as ``RMP,'' as well as an interface replacing RMP known as the
Clearing Trade Interface or ``CTI''. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62155 (May 24, 2010), 75 FR 30081 (May 28, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-67).
    \10\ Other data that is available on SQF 6.0 includes: (1)
Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening imbalance, market
exhaust, PIXL or other information currently provided on SQF 5.0)
;(2) Options Symbol Directory Messages (currently provided on SQF
5.0); (3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of
system hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (4) Complex Order
Strategy Auction Notifications (COLA); (5) Complex Order Strategy
messages; (6) Option Trading Action Messages (e.g., trading halts,
resumption of trading); and (7) Complex Strategy Trading Action
Message (e.g., trading halts, resumption of trading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses an Active SQF Port Fee of $500 per
month per port. Active SQF ports refer to ports that receive inbound
quotes at any time within that month. The Exchange anticipates that
member organizations will utilize both SQF 5.0 and SQF 6.0 for a period
of time.
    SQF 5.0 and SQF 6.0 require different port configurations, and, as
a consequence, a member organization could be charged for both types of
active SQF ports in a given month as the member organization
transitions from SQF 5.0 to SQF 6.0. Therefore, the Exchange proposes
not to charge a member organization for the use of SQF 5.0 active ports
to the extent that the member is paying for the same (or greater)
number of SQF 6.0 active ports. (If a member organization has more SQF
5.0 than SQF 6.0 active ports, then the member organization would
continue to pay for the ``extra'' active SQF 5.0 ports.) This would
avoid duplicative billing while a member organization transitions its
ports from SQF 5.0 to SQF 6.0.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange anticipates that it will take several months
for this transition to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities. Specifically, the Exchange believes that this fee proposal
is fair, reasonable and equitable because it will prevent all member
organizations from experiencing an unintended increase in SQF port
charges during the transition from SQF 5.0 to SQF 6.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-143 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-143. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-Phlx-2010-143 and should be submitted on or before
November 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27140 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57008-57010]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20039]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95742; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2022-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
NYSE National Schedule of Fees and Rebates

September 12, 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 August 29, 2022, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''
or 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 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 amend the NYSE National Schedule of Fees
and Rebates (``Fee Schedule'') to reflect the fee for Directed Orders
routed directly by the Exchange to an alternative trading system
(``ATS''). 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 the Fee Schedule to reflect the fee
for Directed Orders routed directly by the Exchange to an ATS. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 31,
2022.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. In Regulation NMS, 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\6\ numerous alternative trading systems,\7\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 18% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's share of executed volume of equity trades
in Tapes A, B and C securities is less than 2%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain exchange transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    Pursuant to Commission approval, the Exchange adopted a new order
type known as Directed Orders.\10\ A Directed Order is a Limit Order
\11\ with instructions to route on arrival at its limit price to a
specified ATS with which the Exchange maintains an electronic linkage.
Under Exchange rules, the ATS to which a Directed Order is routed would
be responsible for validating whether the order is eligible to be
accepted, and if such ATS determines to reject the order, the order
would be cancelled. Directed Orders must be designated with a Time in
Force modifier of Day \12\ or IOC \13\ or and are eligible to be
designated for the Core Trading Session \14\ only. Directed Orders that
are the subject of this proposed rule

change would be routed to OneChronos LLC (``OneChronos'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 7.31(f)(4). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 95426 (August 4, 2022), 87 FR 48718 (August 10, 2022)
(SR-NYSENAT-2022-06).
    \11\ A Limit Order is defined in Rule 7.31(a)(2) as an order to
buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified price or
better.
    \12\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31(b)(1), any order to buy or sell
designated Day, if not traded, will expire at the end of the
designated session on the day on which it was entered.
    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31(b)(2), a Limit Order may be
designated with an Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') modifier.
    \14\ The Core Trading Session for each security begins at 9:30
a.m. Eastern Time and ends at the conclusion of Core Trading Hours.
See Rule 7.34(a)(2). The term ``Core Trading Hours'' means the hours
of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time through 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such
other hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time.
See Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In anticipation of the scheduled implementation of routing
functionality to OneChronos,\15\ the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee
Schedule to state that the Exchange will not charge a fee for Directed
Orders routed to OneChronos. To reflect the no fee, the Exchange
proposes to amend current Section II. Routing Fees (All ETP Holders) to
state ``No fee for Directed Orders routed to OneChronos LLC'' for
securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange also proposes to
amend the rule text regarding the current routing fee of $0.0030 per
share to clarify that the fee would apply to ``all other'' executions.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to define ``Directed Orders'' under
Section I. A. As proposed, the term ``Directed Orders'' would mean a
Limit Order with instructions to route on arrival at its limit price to
a specified alternative trading system (``ATS'') with which the
Exchange maintains an electronic linkage. The Exchange also proposes to
renumber current definitions (5) through (7) to (6) through (8),
respectively, in conjunction to the changes discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/notifications/trader-update/110000456275/OneChronos_August_2022_Trader_Update_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Directed Orders functionality would
facilitate additional trading opportunities by offering ETP Holders the
ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to be routed to
OneChronos for execution. The Exchange believes the functionality could
create efficiencies for ETP Holders that choose to use the
functionality by enabling them to send orders that they wish to route
to OneChronos through the Exchange by leveraging order entry protocols
already configured for their interaction with the Exchange. ETP Holders
that choose not to utilize Directed Orders would continue to be able to
trade on the Exchange as they currently do.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, 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.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is a
reasonable means to incent ETP Holders to utilize the Directed Orders
functionality and allow ETP Holders to evaluate its efficacy. The
proposed routing of orders to OneChronos is provided by the Exchange on
a voluntary basis and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange
offer it. Nor does any rule or regulation require market participants
to send orders to an ATS generally, let alone to OneChronos. The
routing of orders to OneChronos would operate similarly to the Primary
Only Order already offered by the Exchange, which is an order that is
routed directly to the primary listing market on arrival, without
interacting with the interest on the Exchange Book.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 7.31(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees
among its market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposal
represents an equitable allocation of fees because it would apply
uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all ETP Holders will have the
ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to be routed to
OneChronos, and each such ETP Holder would not be charged a fee when
utilizing the new functionality. While the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether this proposed rule change would serve as an incentive
to utilize the new order type, the Exchange expects that a number of
ETP Holders will utilize the new functionality because it would create
efficiencies for ETP Holders by enabling them to send orders that they
wish to route to OneChronos through the Exchange, thereby enabling them
to leverage order entry protocols already configured for their
interactions with the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory
as the proposal to not charge a fee would be assessed on an equal basis
to all ETP Holders that use the Directed Order functionality. The
proposal to not charge a fee would also enable ETP Holders to evaluate
the efficacy of the new functionality. Moreover, this proposed rule
change neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any
particular category of market participant. The Exchange believes that
this proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the changes
described in this proposal would be applied to all similarly situated
ETP Holders. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the
Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would not
permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the Directed
Order functionality would be available to all ETP Holders on an equal
basis and each such participant would not be charged a fee for using
the functionality.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ 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. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing

of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \21\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed
amendment to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
a reasonable means to incent ETP Holders to utilize the Directed Orders
functionality and allow ETP Holders to evaluate its efficacy. The
Directed Orders functionality would be available to all ETP Holders and
all ETP Holders that use the Directed Orders functionality to route
their orders to OneChronos will not be charged a routing fee. The
proposed routing of orders to OneChronos is provided by the Exchange on
a voluntary basis and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange
offer it. ETP Holders have the choice whether or not to use the
Directed Orders functionality and those that choose not to utilize it
will not be impacted by the proposed rule change. The Exchange also
does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket
competition as the proposed rule change would apply to all ETP Holders
equally that choose to utilize the Directed Orders functionality, and
therefore the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading is currently
less than 2%. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with off-exchange venues. 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 does not
believe its proposed fee change can impose any burden on intermarket
competition.

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) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 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) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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-NYSENAT-2022-17 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-NYSENAT-2022-17. 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-NYSENAT-2022-17, and should be submitted
on or before October 7, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20039 Filed 9-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P