[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47384-47386]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20307]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84117; File No. SR-C2-2018-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Expand the Types of Messages That Users May Submit Into Bulk Order
Ports

September 13, 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 September 5, 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 and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
expand the types of messages that Users may submit into bulk order
ports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 1.1. Definitions

* * * * *

Port

    The term ``port'' includes the following types of ports:
    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) A ``bulk order port'' is a dedicated logical port that provides
Users with the ability to submit single and bulk order messages to
enter, modify, or cancel auction responses or orders designated as Post
Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD with an expiration time
on that trading day.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change expands the types of messages that Users
may submit into bulk order ports. A bulk order port is a dedicated
logical port that provides Users with the ability to submit single and
bulk order messages to enter, modify, or cancel orders designated as
Post Only Orders \5\ with a Time-in-Force of DAY \6\ or GTD \7\ with an
expiration time on that trading day. Post Only Orders with a Time-in-
Force of Day or GTD are orders that will be posted to and displayed by
the Exchange, rather than removing liquidity or routing to another
options exchange. The Exchange currently limits the use of bulk order
ports to

these orders to limit the use of these ports to liquidity provision.
The primary purpose of bulk order ports is to encourage Users, and
Market-Makers in particular, to quote on the Exchange. As a general
matter, however, the overall purpose of bulk order ports is to allow
Users to bundle multiple instructions in a single message and provide
all Users (not just Market-Makers) with an efficient way to provide
liquidity on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Post Only'' order is an order the System ranks and
executes pursuant to Rule 6.12, subjects to the Price Adjust process
pursuant to Rule 6.12, or cancels or rejects (including if it is not
subject to the Price Adjust process and locks or cross a Protected
Quotation of another exchange), as applicable (in accordance with
User instructions), except the order may not remove liquidity from
the Book or route away to another exchange. See Rule 1.1 (paragraph
(h) of definition of Order Instruction).
    \6\ An order designated as ``Day'' means an order that, if not
executed, expires at market close. See Rule 1.1 (definition of Time-
in-Force).
    \7\ An order designated as ``GTD'' means an order that, if after
entry into the System, is not fully executed, remains available for
potential display or execution until a date and time specified by
the entering User unless cancelled by the entering User. See Rule
1.1 (definition of Time-in-Force).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change permits Users to submit auction responses
into bulk order ports, in addition to Post Only Orders with a Time-in-
Force of Day or GTD with an expiration time on that trading day. The
Exchange currently offers one auction mechanism, the Complex Order
Auction (``COA''), which provides Users with additional execution
opportunities and potential price improvement for their complex
orders.\8\ When the Exchange initiates a COA, it disseminates a message
that contains the relevant information about the auction order.\9\ The
purpose of this message is to encourage Users to provide liquidity
against which the auctioned order may trade. Users submit this
liquidity in the form of auction responses. Like Post Only Orders with
a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD with an expiration time on the applicable
trading day, auction responses will not remove liquidity from the
Exchange order book or route to another options exchange. Auction
responses are similarly available for execution for a limited time
period. Unexecuted auction responses are cancelled at the end of the
auction, and thus do not last beyond the auction to which they were
submitted.\10\ Because the purpose of auction responses is to provide
liquidity, which is the purpose of bulk order ports, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to permit Users to submit auction responses
into bulk order ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 6.13(d). COA auctions eligible complex orders for
execution and potential price improvement.
    \9\ See Rule 6.13(d)(1) (the Exchange initiates the COA process
by sending a COA auction message).
    \10\ See Rule 6.13(d)(2)(C) and (4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Orders submitted to the Exchange through all ports are subject to
various parameters, such as price reasonability checks and volume
restrictions.\11\ These parameters may be configured either by the
Exchange or the Member. Orders are also subject to other validation
checks and processes before execution, entry into the book, or
cancellation. Examples of such validation checks include validating an
order's Capacity, Time-in-Force, Order Instructions, and routing
options. While orders submitted through bulk order ports pass through
these same validation checks and processes, they are not subject to
parameters such as routing options and are restricted to one order
instruction and two Time-in-Force options. As a result, the System can
perform these validation checks with respect to orders submitted
through bulk order ports in a more efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Rule 6.14 and technical specifications available
at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/support/technical/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange technical specifications \12\ and Fees
Schedule,\13\ the order messages per second that a User may submit
through a non-bulk order port is smaller than the order messages per
second that a User may submit through a bulk order port. The Exchange
understands from certain Trading Permit Holders that they may restrict
the number of auction response messages they submit to avoid having to
obtain additional ports. The Exchange believes permitting Users to
submit auction responses through bulk order ports will encourage Users
to provide increased liquidity to auction mechanisms in a more cost-
efficient manner. While bulk order ports have a higher monthly cost,
the higher order message/second rate may ultimately be more cost-
efficient than a User having to obtain multiple additional non-bulk
ports to accommodate the submission of auction responses. Additionally,
Users that have both bulk and non-bulk order ports would be able to
increase their submission of auction responses without additional
monthly fees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These technical specifications are available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/support/technical/.
    \13\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Logical Connectivity Fees, available
at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/ctwo/.
    \14\ The Exchange notes certain Market-Makers currently only
have bulk order ports, and thus are unable to provide liquidity to
auction mechanisms without obtaining additional non-bulk order
ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\15\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
protects investors and the public interest because it provides all
Users with an efficient process to enter and update auction responses.
Like quoting, auction responses are a critical form of liquidity on the
Exchange. Auction mechanisms and the execution and price improvement
opportunities they provide are dependent on auction responses submitted
during the auctions. Permitting Users to submit auction responses into
bulk order ports is consistent with the purpose of these ports and have
a similar purpose as the orders that Users are currently permitted to
enter into bulk order ports. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change may encourage the provision of additional liquidity in auctions,
which will provide additional execution and price improvement
opportunities to auctioned orders, which ultimately benefit investors.

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 the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, as the use of bulk order ports and the proposed
functionality is voluntary and available to all Users of the Exchange.
Bulk order entry functionality is available to all Users of the
Exchange, as is the proposed functionality to submit auction responses
into bulk order ports. Users may already submit auction responses to
the Exchange using other types of ports--the proposed rule change
merely provides Users of the Exchange with an additional method to
submit auction responses to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change will have any direct impact on intermarket
competition, as the proposed rule change relates solely to the manner
in

which Users may submit auction responses into auctions occurring on the
Exchange.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2018-019 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-C2-2018-019. 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-C2-2018-019 and should be submitted on
or before October 10, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20307 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 36334]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-62-002]

Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on June 17, 2015, New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits compliance report regarding buyer-side market
mitigation measures, pursuant to the Commission March 19, 2015
Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ] 61,139 (2015) (March
19 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2015.

    Dated: June 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15492 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5923-5926]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02080]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94083; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

January 27, 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 January 21, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''
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 self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to modify certain Market Maker incentives.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 21,
2022.\4\ The proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
December 29, 2021 (SR-NYSEAmer-2021-51), with an effective date of
January 3, 2022, then withdrew such filing and amended the Fee
Schedule on January 12, 2022 (SR-NYSEAmer-2022-03), which latter
filing the Exchange withdrew on January 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of this filing is to modify certain incentives
available to NYSE American Options Market Makers (``Market Makers''),
as set forth below.
    Currently, Market Makers are entitled to reduced per contract rates
for Electronic options transactions as set forth in Section I.C. of the
Fee Schedule, NYSE American Options Market Maker Sliding Scale--
Electronic (the ``Sliding Scale'').\5\ These lower per contract rates
are applicable to monthly volume within a given tier (expressed as
Market Maker Electronic ADV as a percentage of TCADV), such that the
lower per contract rate applies to volume that falls within the range
specified for each tier.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.C., NYSE American Options Market
Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \6\ In calculating Market Maker Electronic monthly volumes, the
Exchange will exclude any volumes attributable to QCC trades, CUBE
Auctions, or Strategy Execution Fee Caps as these transactions are
subject to separate pricing described in Sections I.F., I.G. and
I.J. of the Fee Schedule, respectively. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also offers a prepayment program to Market Makers, in
which Market Maker firms may prepay a portion of the fees they incur on
Electronic transactions, including CUBE transactions, ATP Fees, and
other fees (the ``Prepayment Program''). Market Makers who participate
in the Prepayment Program are entitled to further reduced rates on the
Sliding Scale.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.D., Prepayment Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify the requirements to qualify for
the Market Maker rates set forth in Tiers 1 through 4 of the Sliding
Scale and to adjust the Prepayment Program Participant Rate for non-
take volume in Tier 1, as modified. The Exchange also proposes to
eliminate Tier 5 of the Sliding Scale. These proposed changes are
reflected in the table below with deletions in brackets and new text in
italics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Prepayment Program Participant Rates
                                                                              Rate per contract  Rate per contract -------------------------------------
                    Tier                      Market Maker Electronic ADV as     for non-take     for take volume   Rate per contract  Rate per contract
                                                       a % of TCADV               volume \1\            \1\            for non-take     for take volume
                                                                                volume \1\            \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................  0.00% to [0.20] 0.25%.........              $0.25              $0.25      [$0.22] $0.21              $0.24
2...........................................  >[0.20% to 0.65%] 0.25% to                   0.22               0.24               0.18               0.22
                                               0.70%.
3...........................................  >[0.65% to 1.40%] 0.70% to                   0.12               0.17               0.09               0.13
                                               1.50%.
4...........................................  >[1.40% to 2.00%] 1.50%.......               0.09               0.14               0.06               0.10
[5..........................................  >2.00%........................               0.06               0.09               0.03              0.06]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will continue to
encourage Market Makers to direct orders and quotes to the Exchange and
to incent Market Makers to participate in the Prepayment Program to
receive reduced rates on Electronic options transactions, among other
benefits. Although the Exchange proposes slight increases to the ranges
covered by each of Tiers 1 through 4, the Exchange believes that the
Sliding Scale, as modified, would continue to offer a significant
reduction in overall transaction rates for Market Makers, as well as
additional reductions for Market Makers that participate in the
Prepayment Program. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
reduction to the Tier 1 rate per contract for non-take volume for
Prepayment Program participants will likewise continue to encourage
those Market Makers to participate in the program and to direct orders
and quotes to the Exchange to benefit from the reduced rates under the
program. Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Tier 5 on the
Sliding Scale because it has not successfully incented Market Makers to
achieve the requisite volume to earn the corresponding per contract
rates.
    Currently, the Exchange also offers Market Makers that participate
in the Prepayment Program a reduced rate on Manual transactions, as set
forth in Section I.A. of the Fee Schedule at footnote 6.\8\
Specifically, for each contract transacted manually, Market Makers
receive a $0.02 per contract discount, and NYSE American Options
Specialists/e-Specialists receive a $0.01 per contract discount. The
Exchange proposes to eliminate these reduced rates on Manual
transactions for participants in the Prepayment Program because this
incentive has not impacted their participation in Manual
transactions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.A., Rates for Options
transactions, note 6.
    \9\ To effect this change, the Exchange also proposes to delete
the references to footnote 6 in the ``Participant'' column of the
table in Section I.A. and to designate footnote 6 as ``Reserved.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective January
12 [sic], 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
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.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\13\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in November 2021, the Exchange
had less than 8% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \14\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply-listed equity and ETF
options the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
decreased from 9.09% for the month of November 2020 to 7.06% for the
month of November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes the proposed modifications to the Sliding
Scale tier requirements for Market Makers and the rates available to
Prepayment Program participants are reasonable because they would
continue to incent Market Makers, including Prepayment Program
participants, to direct orders and quotes to the Exchange and because
the Sliding Scale fee structure, as modified, would remain in line with
a similarly structured program on another options exchange.\15\ The
Exchange also believes the elimination of Tier 5 of the Sliding Scale
and the reduced Manual rates for Prepayment Program participants is
reasonable, as neither incentive has fulfilled its intended purpose to
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CBOE Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale and footnote 10, available at: https://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf (providing liquidity
providers that prepay monthly fees with reduced transaction rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent the proposed change continues to attract greater
volume and liquidity to the Exchange, the Exchange believes the
proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness
and strengthen its market quality for all market

participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which
the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt
by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve its
market share relative to its competitors.
    While the Exchange cannot predict the extent to which Market Makers
would choose to participate in the Prepayment Program or seek to
achieve the Sliding Scale tiers, the Exchange believes that Market
Makers would continue to be encouraged to take advantage of the
favorable rates available in the Sliding Scale tiers and through the
Prepayment Program, thereby increasing order flow to the Exchange and
promoting market quality for all market participants.
The Proposed Rule Change is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Market Makers can
opt to participate in the Prepayment Program or not, and to achieve one
of the tiers on the Sliding Scale, or not. Moreover, to the extent the
proposal is designed to continue to encourage Market Makers to commit
capital to the Exchange as a demonstration of long-term participation
on the Exchange as a primary execution venue, the Exchange believes
that the proposed modifications to incent Market Maker participation in
the Prepayment Program are an equitable allocation of fees and credits.
In addition, to the extent that the proposed change continues to incent
Market Makers to increase volume on the Exchange in order to qualify
for the Sliding Scale rates, the resulting increased order flow would
continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other
things, order execution.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating Tier 5 of the Sliding Scale
and the reduced Manual rates for Prepayment Program participants is an
equitable allocation of fees and credits because these incentives have
not successfully encouraged the intended Market Maker activity.
    Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve
market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed modifications are not unfairly
discriminatory because they would apply and be available to all
similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. Specifically, the proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Market Makers are
not obligated to participate in the Prepayment Program or try to
achieve any of the Sliding Scale tiers that would provide for reduced
rates. In addition, because Market Makers have increased obligations
with respect to trading on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes are not unfairly discriminatory to non-Market Makers
and further believes that the proposed change would continue to incent
Market Makers to both participate in the Prepayment Program and
increase orders and quotes directed to the Exchange. To the extent that
the proposed change attracts a variety of transactions to the Exchange,
this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more
competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market
participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order
flow to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price
discovery. The resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to all market
participants and thus would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange further believes that the elimination of Sliding Scale
Tier 5 and the reduced Manual rates for Prepayment Program participants
is not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced rates have not been
effective in incenting Market Makers to execute sufficient volume to
qualify for the tier or to execute Manual transactions, as applicable.
    Finally, 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, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, 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.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 12, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange by offering competitive rates
based on increased volumes on the Exchange, including further reduced
rates for Market Makers that participate in the Prepayment Program. The
Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the Sliding Scale
and other incentives available to Market Makers would continue to
incent Market Makers to direct additional volume to the Exchange.
Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange, and
increased volume from Market Makers would increase opportunities for
execution of other trading interest. The proposed modifications would
apply to all similarly-situated Market Makers and, because Market
Makers have increased obligations with respect to trading on the
Exchange, are not unfairly discriminatory to non-Market Makers, and
thus 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 favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed

equity and ETF options trades.\17\ Therefore, currently no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically, in November 2021,
the Exchange had less than 8% market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 13.
    \18\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply-listed equity and ETF
options the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
decreased from 9.09% for the month of November 2020 to 7.06% for the
month of November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to continue to encourage Market Makers to direct
trading interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract
order flow. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the modifications
to the Sliding Scale would continue to offer a significant reduction in
overall transaction rates for Market Makers, as well as additional
reductions for Market Makers that participate in the Prepayment
Program. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the
Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market
quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

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) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 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) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-07 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-NYSEAMER-2022-07. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. 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-NYSEAMER-2022-07, and should
be submitted on or before February 23, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02080 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46198-46200]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89403; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Defer Entry Fees for Acquisition Companies

July 27, 2020.
    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 July 14, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to defer entry fees for Acquisition Companies
for one year from the date of listing and to make minor attendant
technical changes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2009 Nasdaq adopted a rule (IM-5101-2) to impose additional
listing requirements on a company whose business plan is to complete an
initial public offering and engage in a merger or acquisition with one
or more unidentified companies within a specific period of time
(``Acquisition Companies'').\3\ Based on experience listing these
companies, Nasdaq proposes to modify the process of assessing entry
fees applicable to them on all three tiers of Nasdaq. Specifically, for
an Acquisition Company listed under IM-5101-2 on the Nasdaq Global or
Global Select Market, Nasdaq proposes to defer the entry fee described
in Listing Rule 5910(a)(1) for one year from the date of listing.
Similarly, for an Acquisition Company listed under IM-5101-2 on the
Nasdaq Capital Market, Nasdaq proposes to defer the entry fee described
in Listing Rule 5920(a)(1) for one year from the date of listing. For
the avoidance of doubt, in each case, such fee is owed to Nasdaq at the
time of listing based on the fee schedule in effect on the date of
listing but is assessed by Nasdaq on the first anniversary of the date
of listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58228 (July 25, 2008),
73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (adopting the predecessor to IM-5101-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acquisition Companies are formed to raise capital in an initial
public offering (IPO) with the purpose of using the proceeds to acquire
one or more unspecified businesses or assets to be identified after the
IPO. However, unlike other types of listed companies that have pre-
existing operations or that fund their operations by proceeds raised
from the IPO, following the IPO, an Acquisition Company funds a trust
account with an amount typically equal to 100% of the gross proceeds of
the IPO.\4\ As such, operating expenses are typically borne by the
Acquisition Company's sponsors, particularly during the initial post-
IPO period. The Acquisition Company's sponsor is the entity or
management team that forms the Acquisition Company and, typically, runs
the operations of the Acquisition Company until an appropriate target
company is identified and the business combination is consummated. The
funds in the trust account are typically invested in short-term U.S.
government securities or held as cash, earning interest over time.
Thus, Acquisition Company unique structure results in sponsor's extreme
fee sensitivity, particularly during the initial post-IPO period before
any substantial amount of interest is earned from the trust account.
Nasdaq believes that the market practice of depositing 100% of the
gross proceeds of the IPO in a trust account (rather than the minimum
required 90%) benefits shareholders and is consistent with investor
protection because it helps assure that shareholders exercising their
right to redeem their shares for a pro rata share of the trust account
will receive the full IPO price paid, rather than a lesser amount
guaranteed by Nasdaq rules.\5\ Accordingly, to encourage this market
practice Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to defer the payment of the
entry fees owed by an Acquisition Company listed on Nasdaq until the
first anniversary of the date of listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While under Nasdaq's rules an Acquisition Company could pay
operating and other expenses, subject to a limitation that 90% of
the gross proceeds of the company's offering must be retained in
trust account, Nasdaq understands that marketplace demands typically
dictate that 100% of the gross proceeds from the IPO be kept in the
trust account and that only interest earned on that account be used
to pay taxes and a limited amount of operating expenses. See Listing
Rule IM-5101-2 (a).
    \5\ See Listing Rule IM-5101-2 (d) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that the proposed fee deferral would provide an
incentive to sponsors to list Acquisition Companies

on Nasdaq. Nasdaq also believes it is reasonable to balance its need to
remain competitive with other listing venues, while at the same time
ensuring adequate revenue to meet is regulatory responsibilities.
Nasdaq notes that the fee deferral will not cause any reduction to
Nasdaq's revenue and no other company will be required to pay higher
fees as a result of the proposed amendments and represents that the
proposed fee deferral will have no impact on the resources available
for its regulatory programs.
    Nasdaq also proposes to amend Listing Rules 5910(a)(11) and
5920(a)(11) to clarify that Acquisition Companies listed under IM-5101-
2 are subject to the application fees described in these rules. This
will also help assure that there is no impact on the resources
available for Nasdaq's regulatory programs.
    Finally, Nasdaq proposes to amend the reference in Listing Rule
5920(a)(1) to correctly cross reference Listing Rule 5920(a)(11), which
describes the assessment of application fees on the Nasdaq Capital
Market.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As a preliminary matter, Nasdaq competes for listings with other
national securities exchanges and companies can easily choose to list
on, or transfer to, those alternative venues. As a result, the fees
Nasdaq can charge listed companies are constrained by the fees charged
by its competitors and Nasdaq cannot charge prices in a manner that
would be unreasonable, inequitable, or unfairly discriminatory.
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change to defer the entry
fees described in Listing Rules 5910(a)(1) and 5920(a)(1) for one year
from the date of listing is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it recognizes the unique structure Acquisition Companies that
results in sponsor's extreme fee sensitivity, particularly during the
initial post-IPO period before any substantial amount of interest is
earned from the trust account. Unlike other companies, which have pre-
existing operations and immediate access to the IPO proceeds,
Acquisition Companies are unique because at least 90%, and typically
100%, of the IPO proceeds are held in trust for the shareholders and
are not available to fund their operations. Acquisition Companies also
do not have any prior operations that generate cash that could be used
to fund their operations. Nasdaq also believes that the proposed fee
deferral is reasonable in that it will create a commercial incentive
for sponsors to list Acquisition Companies on Nasdaq. Nasdaq competes
for listings, in part, by the level of its listing fees, and the
proposed deferral of the entry fees for Acquisition Companies based on
the unique issues associated with their structure is similarly a
reasonable basis on which for Nasdaq to distinguish itself from
competitors.
    Nasdaq also notes that no other company will be required to pay
higher fees as a result of the proposed amendments. Therefore, Nasdaq
believes that allowing an Acquisition Company to pay entry fees on a
deferred basis is reasonable and not inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory.
    Finally, Nasdaq believes that the proposal to defer such fees is
consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act in that they are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market
and national market system, and in general to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the amount of revenue deferred by
allowing Acquisition Companies to pay entry fees one year from the date
of listing is not substantial, and the fee deferral may result in more
Acquisition Companies listing on Nasdaq, thereby increasing the
resources available for Nasdaq's listing compliance program, which
helps assure that listing standards are properly enforced and investors
are protected. In addition, Nasdaq believes that the market practice of
depositing 100% of the gross proceeds of the IPO in a trust account for
the benefit of shareholders (rather than the required 90%) benefits
those shareholders and is consistent with the investor protection goals
of the Act because it helps assure that shareholders exercising their
right to redeem their shares for a pro rata share of the trust account
will receive the full IPO price paid, rather than a lesser amount
guaranteed by Nasdaq rules.
    Nasdaq believes that the potential impact on revenue from the entry
fee deferral, as proposed, will not hinder its ability to fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities.
    Nasdaq also believes that the proposed rule change to amend Listing
Rules 5910(a)(11) and 5920(a)(11) to clarify that Acquisition Companies
listed under IM-5101-2 are subject to the application fees described in
these rules and to amend the reference in Listing Rule 5920(a)(1) to
correctly cross reference Listing Rule 5920(a)(11), which describes the
assessment of application fees, is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade by eliminating potential confusion about
Nasdaq rules by clarifying these rules and updating an inaccurate
cross-reference, without changing the substance of the rules.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The market for
listing services is extremely competitive and listed companies may
freely choose alternative venues based on the aggregate fees assessed,
and the value provided by each listing. This rule proposal does not
burden competition with other listing venues, which are similarly free
to set their fees. For these reasons, Nasdaq does not believe that the
proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition for
listings.

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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-038 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-NASDAQ-2020-038. 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 submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-038 and should be submitted on or before
August 21, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16572 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18981-18982]
[FR Doc No: E9-9333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28077; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-20-AD;
Amendment 39-15889; AD 2009-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1
Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Several cases of Gas Generator Turbine (HP Turbine) blade
rearward displacement have been detected during borescope inspection
or in repair centre following engine disassembly. Two of them
resulted in blade rubs between the rear face of the fir-tree roots
and the rear bearing support cover. High HP blade rearward
displacement can potentially result in blade release due to fatigue
of the blade, which would cause an uncommanded in-flight engine
shutdown.

We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded in-flight engine
shutdown which could result in an emergency autorotation landing or, at
worst, an accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 1, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of June 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2008 (73
FR 74661). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Several cases of Gas Generator Turbine (HP Turbine) blade
rearward displacement have been detected during borescope inspection
or in repair centre following engine disassembly. Two of them
resulted in blade rubs between the rear face of the fir-tree roots
and the rear bearing support cover.
    High HP blade rearward displacement can potentially result in
blade release due to fatigue of the blade, which would cause an
uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown.
    The evaluation of this condition has prompted to require a
periodic borescope inspection in order to detect HP blade rearward
displacement. Additionally, in case displacement is found above the
specified limit, removal of Module 03 is required.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Removal of the Arriel 2B1A Engine

    Since we issued the proposed AD, we discovered that we
inadvertently listed the Arriel 2B1A engine in the applicability. We
removed that model from the AD, as it is not certified for operation in
the U.S.

Deletion of Reporting Requirement

    We deleted the Turbomeca reporting requirement from the AD, since
we determined that the reporting requirement was unnecessary.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 248 engines on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
2 work-hours per engine to perform the actions and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $39,680. Our cost
estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-09-03 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-15889. Docket No. FAA-2007-
28077; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-20-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 1,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1
turboshaft engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited
to, Eurocopter AS 350 B3 and EC 130 B4 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) Several cases of Gas Generator Turbine (HP Turbine) blade
rearward displacement have been detected during borescope inspection
or in repair centre following engine disassembly. Two of them
resulted in blade rubs between the rear face of the fir-tree roots
and the rear bearing support cover. High HP blade rearward
displacement can potentially result in blade release due to fatigue
of the blade, which would cause an uncommanded in-flight engine
shutdown.

We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded in-flight engine
shutdown which could result in an emergency autorotation landing or,
at worst, an accident.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions:

Initial Inspection

    (1) Perform an initial HP turbine borescope inspection according
to Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2825,
dated April 5, 2007 as follows:
    (i) For engines with fewer than 500 hours and 450 cycles since
new or since the last HP turbine borescope inspection, inspect
before reaching 600 hours or 500 cycles, whichever occurs first.
Replace HP turbine modules with rearward turbine blade displacement
greater than 0.5 mm.
    (ii) For the remaining engines, inspect within the next 100
hours. Replace HP turbine modules with rearward turbine blade
displacement greater than 0.5 mm.

Repetitive Inspections

    (2) Perform repetitive HP turbine borescope inspections
according to Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2825, dated April 5,
2007:
    (i) Within 600 hours or 500 cycles from the previous inspection,
whichever occurs first, if the rearward displacement of the turbine
blades was less than 0.2 mm. Replace HP turbine modules with
rearward turbine blade displacement greater than 0.5 mm.
    (ii) Within 100 hours of the previous inspection if the rearward
displacement of the turbine blades was between 0.2 mm and 0.5 mm.
Replace HP turbine modules with rearward turbine blade displacement
greater than 0.5 mm.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) For clarification, we restructured the actions and
compliance wording of this AD.
    (g) We deleted the Turbomeca reporting requirement from the AD,
since we determined that the reporting requirement was unnecessary.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0109, dated April
19, 2007, and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2825, dated April 5,
2007, for related information.
    (j) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
292 72 2825, dated April 5, 2007, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (l) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00, fax 33
05 59 74 45 15.
    (m) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 16, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9333 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67472-67473]
[DOCID:fr07no05-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 349-096]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

November 1, 2005.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order
    No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed
an application for non-project use of project lands and waters at the
Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 349) and has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed non-project use. The
project is located on Lake Martin near Dadeville, Tallapoosa County,
Alabama.
    In the application, Alabama Power Company (licensee) requests
Commission authorization to permit The Profile Group to use project
lands to build a walkway along the shoreline and 19 dock structures
with 128 boat slips. The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the
probable environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that
approving the licensee's application, with staff's recommended
environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order Approving Non-
Project Use of Project Lands and Waters,'' which was issued October 31,
2005, and is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the

project number (prefaced by P-) and excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6160 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 MEMORANDUM 		 TO:		Gil Wood, USEPA 		David Cole, USEPA

FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

DATE:		September 18, 2013

SUBJECT:	Notes from OMB  -  Alliance for Green Heat Conference Call on 9/16/2013 regarding Wood Heater NSPS Proposal

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and EPA were on the call. Primary speakers were Tom Morrissey, President of Woodstock Soapstone in New Hampshire, John Ackerly of The Alliance for Green Heat, and Britt Fleming, counsel to The Alliance for Green Heat.        Tom Morrissey comments:

 Here in support of the rule representing a very small ("micro") business of 30 employees. Noted that because Soapstone is so small it represents the most vulnerable segment of the manufacturers impacted by the NSPS, and further noted several times how transparent EPA/Gil has been with development of proposed rule.         Speaking as a small business, the emission limits being considered are "eminently possible". Soapstone already has 3 stoves in neighborhood of 1.3 g/hr already and a 4[th] stove that should be ready in November to be certified at 1 or 0.9 g/hr, and be cheaper, too.         Soapstone's R&D plus certification cost for new stove = ~$200,000. Tom has heard some industry estimates at twice this amount and noted he could see spending ~$400,000 for very first model but after that the manufacturers tend to copy an existing model, so the costs shouldn't be that high. In response to question from OMB about whether the $200,000 is representative of the industry as a whole, Tom said yes and furthermore that he has seen some higher industry estimates and some are "almost unbelievable".

 Soapstone supports NSPS also because the public health benefits way exceed the cost to us, as manufacturers. Our industry can ruin air quality for entire community. The regulations Tom's seen are well done, thoughtful, and bring in sources that have not been regulated before.

 This set of regulations in the best possible thing that could happen to our industry because we need to be able to say our products are clean, efficient and non-polluting while passing the "giggle test".

 In response to question from OMB about lessons learned during last go-round, Tom responded the primary lesson is to not wait until the end. His company has been diligently working for 5 or 6 years to develop better stoves [i.e., those noted above]. This can't be done last minute, but a 2 to 5-year window is adequate. All progress is iterative and 2 or even 3 design cycles are possible within 5 year window.         In response to question from OMB about how the company budgets, Tom responded that while there are fixed costs at the end for EPA and UL testing, in the beginning the cost is all man-hours, as even the material is inexpensive (~$1.20/lb of steel). In response to question as to whether costs come out of additional operating expenses rather than capital expenditures, Tom explained that as a C-corp he has retained earnings and a line of credit. So this line of credit can be used for development. The company budgets 4-5% every year for R&D plus can easily get equipment loans through hometown banks, as money is so cheap currently. So it's a mix of retained earnings, line of credit, equipment loans, and eager employees.

John Ackerly (Alliance for Green Heat) comments:

  The Alliance for Green Heat is very supportive of most of the regulations although the Alliance would like the rule to be stricter in a few key places. More people in the US use wood than use oil and propane and, in the 2000 to 2010 time frame, wood heating has grown the fastest. The US needs cleaner models as Europe is trouncing the US in this regard, since the US hasn't kept up.         The Alliance wants to see the regulations in place ASAP, and thinks efficiency is very important. The proposed 4.5 g/hr standard is too easy and doesn't raise the bar at all. In particular, the standard needs to be tighter for pellet stoves as the average pellet stoves is at 2.5 g/hr and a 1g/hr difference is important, especially in urban areas where pellet stoves can be used. There is no reason for the 4.5 g/hr standard  -  this is backsliding and will allow Chinese units to swamp the market.         The 5-year timing is reasonable except for hydronic heaters where the standard needs to get stricter sooner. HH give wood burning a bad name  -  it's a pernicious technology that should have been disallowed. A 2-year time frame, rather than a 5-year period, is needed for HH. Small businesses should not be protected if their product is dirty.         The Alliance agrees with T. Morrissey and is impressed with how transparent EPA has been. But there should be a minimum efficiency standard.  Disclosure is needed at least, but a minimum efficiency standard is good because efficiency is a proxy for CO; a minimum efficiency is not a huge challenge to manufacturers; and yet it will give some assurance to consumers.  The Alliance would like the green label effort mentioned in the Preamble. Since there is no energy star rating, it's at least worth mentioning the green label effort to show EPA supports it.         There is an increasing number of ways to produce clean stoves affordably (e.g., oxygen sensors/monitors). The Alliance invites OMB rep to visit the wood stove challenge on the lawn in DC in November.

 Britt Fleming noted that although EPA is likely not including efficiency in the regulation, it should at least be mentioned in the Preamble as an option/alternative EPA is taking comment on. (Tom Morrissey agreed that publishing efficiencies are absolutely essential for consumer comparison.) Britt noted that EPA should also take comments on tighter standards than are in the reg text. The Alliance would like to keep as many options open as possible in the rulemaking package  -  that is, keep logic in the Preamble for a different pathway. These products last a very long time, so it's critical we get low emitting units that are also efficient as soon as possible.