[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79986-79989]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32188]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76674; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

December 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 December 4, 2015, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Increase
the transaction fees for transactions in standard options in non-Penny
Pilot classes for Public Customers \3\ that are not a Priority
Customer,\4\ Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and
Firms,\5\ and (ii) increase the transaction fees for transactions in
standard options in Penny Pilot classes for Firms. The Exchange also
proposes to modify the transaction fees for transactions for Public
Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers,
Non-Member Broker-Dealers and Firms that achieve certain Priority
Customer Rebate Program \6\ volume tiers. The proposed changes are
based on the similar fees of other competing options exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s).
    \5\ This fee is assessed to an Electronic Exchange Member
(``EEM'') that enters an order that is executed for an account
identified by the EEM for clearing in the OCC ``Firm'' range. See
Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)ii). The term ``Electronic Exchange
Member'' means the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market
Maker. Electronic Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the
Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii).
    \7\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; and
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Fees Schedule, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing proportional fee changes applicable
to Mini-Options in non-Penny Pilot classes, except that such fees
applicable to Firms will be increased from $0.04 to $0.07 per contract,
as described below. The Mini-Options transaction fee in

Penny Pilot classes will remain unchanged.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.75 per contract
fee for transactions in standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes by
Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer. The Exchange also
proposes to assess a $0.75 per contract fee for transactions in
standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes by Non-MIAX Market Makers.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.75 per contract fee
for transactions in standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes by Non-
Member Broker-Dealers. The Exchange believes that these proposed fees
are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they
are the same for all participants other than Priority Customers, who
are not assessed transaction fees.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.75 per contract fee
for transactions in standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes by
Firms. The Exchange believes that this proposed fee increase for Firms
in non-Penny Pilot classes is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. While Firms are currently charged significantly less
(i.e., 20 cents per contract) than Public Customers that are not
Priority Customers, non-MIAX Market Makers, and non-Member Broker-
Dealers, the Exchange is simply proposing to place market participants
in all of these categories on equal footing by increasing the
transaction fees in non-Penny Pilot classes for such participants,
including Firms, to an equal amount of $0.75 per contract. This fee is
intended to balance the costs incurred by the Exchange for the
execution of such orders, and to encourage the submission and execution
of Priority Customer orders on the Exchange at no charge.
    The Exchange also proposes to increase the transaction fees
assessed for transactions in standard options in Penny Pilot classes
for Firms from $0.37 to $0.45 per contract. The Exchange believes that
this proposed fee increase is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it creates a more even playing field among
Public Customers that are not Priority Customers, non-MIAX Market
Makers, non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms. The Exchange initially
established the transaction fees for Firms at a significantly lower
rate than the other named categories of participants as a competitive
measure to attract order flow from Firms. The Exchange believes that a
variety of incentives, including but not limited to transaction fees,
now achieve this goal. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the
transaction fees in standard options for Firms in Penny Pilot classes
to $0.45 per contract. This is still $0.02 less than the Penny Pilot
class transaction fees for the other named categories of participants
and the Exchange believes that it is still beneficial for competitive
reasons to offer this fee to Firms.
    The Exchange proposes to continue to offer Public Customers that
are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-
Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce these transaction fees by
$0.02 per contract in standard options.\8\ In order to accomplish this
reduction in transaction fees, any Member or its affiliates of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form
BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program
volume tiers 3 or 4, and is: A Public Customer that is not a Priority
Customer; a Non-MIAX Market Maker; a Non-Member Broker-Dealer; or a
Firm will be assessed a reduced transaction fee of $0.73 per contract
for standard options in non-Penny Pilot option classes. Any Member or
its affiliates of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as
reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for
Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3 or 4 and is a Firm will
be assessed a reduced transaction fee of $0.43 per contract in Penny
Pilot classes and $0.73 per contract in non-Penny Pilot classes. The
Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage these market
participants to transact a greater number of orders on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 72988 (September 4,
2014), 79 FR 53808 (September 10, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-46); 72989
(September 4, 2014), 79 FR 53792 (September 10, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-
47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the transaction fees for
Mini-Options in non-Penny classes from $0.06 to $0.07 for Public
Customers that are not Priority Customers, Non-MIAX Market Makers and
Non-Member Broker-Dealers. This represents a proportional increase in
the applicable transaction fees for standard options in non-Penny Pilot
classes. The Exchange is also proposing to increase the Mini-Option fee
in non-Penny Pilot classes for Firms from its current $0.04 per
contract to $0.07 per contract. This also represents a proportional
increase relative to the proposed fees for non-Penny Pilot classes in
standard options, placing Firms on an even playing field with other
non-Priority Customer participants in Mini-Options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the transaction fees is
reasonable because the Exchange's fees will remain competitive with
fees at other options exchanges.\11\ The Exchange's proposal to
increase the transaction fees for these market participants is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the increase applies
equally to all of the participants in each category of market
participant. The Exchange does not assess transactions fees on Priority
Customers because Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on
the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants by providing
more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers and other
market participants. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants. MIAX Market Makers are assessed lower transaction fees as
compared to Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX
Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms because they have
market-making obligations and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to market participants that are not MIAX Market
Makers.\12\ MIAX Market Makers have obligations to make continuous
markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not
make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent
with a course of dealings. In addition, Members are subject to other
fees and dues associated with their membership to the Exchange that do
not apply to non-Members, and the instant proposal recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. The $0.75 per contract
fee for transactions in standard options in non-Penny Pilot classes by

Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market
Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers and Firms are reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because they are the same for all
market participants other than Priority Customers, who are not assessed
transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; and
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Fees Schedule, p. 1.
    \12\ See Exchange Rules 603 and 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase for standard
options in Penny Pilot classes for Firms is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it creates a more even playing
field among Public Customers that are not Priority Customers, non-MIAX
Market Makers, non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed increase in
transaction fees in Mini-Options in non-Penny Pilot classes for Firms
from its current $0.04 per contract to $0.07 per contract is
reasonable. equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it
simply represents a proportional increase relative to the proposed fees
for non-Penny Pilot classes in standard options, placing Firms on an
even playing field with other non-Priority Customer participants in
Mini-Options.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer Public Customers that are not a
Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers
and Firms the continued opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02
per contract in standard options is reasonable because the Exchange
desires to offer all such market participants an opportunity to lower
their transaction fees. The Exchange's proposal to offer such market
participants the continued opportunity to reduce transaction fees by
$0.02 per contract in standard options, provided certain criteria are
met, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
will offer all market participants that are charged transaction fees a
means to reduce such transaction fees by reaching volume tiers in the
Priority Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes that the
opportunity to lower transaction fees through incentives to transact
Priority Customer order flow benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow the aggregation of
trading activity of Members and their affiliates for purposes of the
fee reduction is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because it
would allow aggregation of the trading activity of qualified affiliates
only in very narrow circumstances, namely, where the affiliate meets
the definition of an ``affiliate'' as stated in the Fee Schedule.
Furthermore, other exchanges and MIAX have rules that permit the
aggregation of the trading activity of affiliated entities for the
purposes of calculating and assessing certain fees.\13\ The Exchange
believes that the opportunity for all such market participants to lower
transaction fees by transacting greater Priority Customer order flow in
turn benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule Preface;
and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Fees Schedule,
Footnote 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess transaction fees
in non-Penny Pilot options classes, which differs from Penny Pilot
options classes, is consistent with other options markets that also
assess different transaction fees for non-Penny Pilot options classes
as compared to Penny Pilot options classes. The Exchange believes that
establishing different pricing for non-Penny Pilot options and Penny
Pilot options is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because Penny Pilot options are more liquid options as compared to non-
Penny Pilot options. Additionally, other competing options exchanges
differentiate pricing in a similar manner.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 6; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Fees Schedule, p. 1; NASDAQ OMX BX Options Pricing
Schedule, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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. The proposal is
similar to the transaction fees found on other options exchanges;
therefore, the Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with robust
competition by increasing the intermarket competition for order flow
from market participants. The proposal more closely aligns the fees for
Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market
Makers, Non-Member Broker-dealers and Firms on the Exchange to those of
other exchanges for the same market participants. To the extent that
there is additional competitive burden on non-Member market
participants, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because
charging non-Members higher transaction fees is a common practice
amongst exchanges, and because Members are subject to other fees and
dues associated with their membership to the Exchange that do not apply
to non-Members. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction
volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow
directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The
Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive
environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2015-70 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-MIAX-2015-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-70 and should be
submitted on or before January 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32188 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43234-43235]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-603); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-603 (Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information Data Request) and submitting the information
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 17,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to OMB through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk
Officer. Please identify OMB Control Number 1902-0197 in the subject
line of your comments; comments should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. OMB submissions
must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the
``Currently Under Review'' field, select Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; click ``submit,'' and select ``comment'' to the right of
the subject collection.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC20-13-000, by the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.govp.
     Mail by U.S. Postal Service: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
     Deliveries other than by U.S. Postal Service: Health and
Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-603, Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure
Information Data Request.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0197.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-603 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, other than the signed statement from the
requester attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the
request, which was inadvertently omitted from the prior version of the
form.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the previous
form. See 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Abstract: The Commission published a 60-day Notice \2\ in the
Federal Register on March 27, 2020, requesting public comment. In
addition, the Commission issued an Errata Notice on April 1, 2020,
including the form.\3\ The Commission received one comment from the
Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) with
recommendations for changes to the Form 603 and to the CEII process
generally. EIPC states that the form does not adequately protect CEII,
specifically the detailed grid information included in Parts 2, 3, and
6 of FERC Form No. 715. EIPC urges the Commission to revamp the
statement of need section to ``require a demonstration that
dissemination of the

information would enhance the work of those entities charged with
ensuring bulk power reliability of the electric grid.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 85 FR 17326
    \3\ See https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=15501007 and https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=15501008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission acknowledges EIPC's comments and Commission
staff will coordinate a meeting to hear EIPC's concerns, the purpose of
the FERC-603 form review is to request comments on the burden on public
requesters who need to complete the form to receive CEII. EIPC's
comments do not address this issue and could result in additional
burdens on CEII requesters. Accordingly, EIPC's concerns do not support
modifying the CEII request form for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. We emphasize and reiterate, however, that EIPC will have a
subsequent opportunity to more fully express its concerns and to be
heard in the appropriate forum and at the appropriate time.
    FERC-603 is used by the Commission to implement procedures for
individuals (including federal and state agencies, consultants, and
others) with a valid or legitimate need for access to Critical Energy/
Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII), which is exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), subject
to a non-disclosure agreement. Examples of the various non-disclosure
agreements, and other agreements, that are used to ensure that the
information is not improperly shared with individuals who have not been
approved to receive the specific CEII by the Commission, are available
at: https://www.ferc.gov/enforcement-legal/ceii/electronic-ceii-request-form.
    On February 21, 2003, the Commission issued Order No. 630 (66 FR
52917) to address the appropriate treatment of CEII in the aftermath of
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to restrict access due to
the ongoing terrorism threat. Given that such information would
typically be exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to FOIA, the
Commission determined that it was important to have a process for
individuals with a valid or legitimate need to access certain sensitive
energy infrastructure information. As such, the Commission's CEII
process is designed to limit the distribution of sensitive
infrastructure information to those individuals with a need to know in
order to avoid having sensitive information fall into the hands of
those who may use it to attack the Nation's infrastructure.\4\ This
collection was prepared as part of the implementation of the CEII
request process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission defined CEII to include information about
``existing or proposed critical infrastructure that: (i) Relates to
the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or
distribution of energy; (ii) could be useful to a person planning an
attack on critical infrastructure; (iii) is exempt from mandatory
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and (iv) does not
simply give the location of the critical infrastructure. Critical
infrastructure means existing and proposed systems and assets,
whether physical or virtual, the incapacity or destruction of which
would negatively affect security, economic security, public health
or safety, or any combination of those matters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2015, the President signed the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) into law, which directed the
Commission to issue regulations aimed at securing and sharing sensitive
infrastructure information.\5\ On November 17, 2016, in Order No. 833
(in Docket No. RM16-15), the Commission adopted a Final Rule
implementing the FAST Act by amending its regulations that pertain to
the designation, protection, and sharing of CEII. The Final Rule became
effective on February 19, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-
94, 61,003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1773-1779 (2015) (to be codified at 16
U.S.C. 824 et seq.) (FAST Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC-603, Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information
(CEII) request form, is largely unchanged from the previously approved
versions. As in the previous versions, a person or entity seeking
access to CEII must file a request for that information by providing
information about their identity and the reason the individual needs
the information. With that information, the Commission is able to
assess the requester's need for the information against the sensitivity
of the information. The updated form has been changed to include one
additional requirement, a signed statement from the requester attesting
to the accuracy of the information provided in the request. This
requirement was inadvertently omitted from the previous form. See 18
CFR 388.113(g)(5)(i)(D).
    The Request Form \6\ is attached to this notice but will not be
published in the Federal Register. It will be posted in the
Commission's eLibrary system with this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Request Form (and sample non-disclosure agreements) and
additional information about the CEII program are posted at: https://www.ferc.gov/enforcement-legal/ceii/overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Persons and organizations seeking access to
CEII.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \7\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \8\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \8\ The Commission staff thinks that the average respondent for
this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of
salary plus benefits. Based upon the FERC's 2019 average cost for
salary plus benefits, the average hourly cost is $80/hour.

                      FERC-603: Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Annual  number                      Average burden hours  Total annual burden
   Number of      of  responses    Total number  of      and cost ($) per     hours  and total     Cost ($) per
  respondents    per  respondent       responses            response          annual cost ($)       respondent
(1)                         (2)     (1) * (2) = (3)   (4).................  (3) * (4) = (5)....       (5) / (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           100                1                 100   0.3 hrs.; $24.......  30 hrs.; $2,400....             $24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: July 10, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15353 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 51836]
[DOCID:fr23au10-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1906-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1906-DR), dated April 29, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-212, FEMA is
amending the cost-sharing arrangement concerning Federal funds provided
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5140b, 5172, and 5123 for the major
disaster declared on April 29, 2010, for the State of Mississippi due
to the damage resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding.
The Mississippi major disaster declaration is amended as follows:

    Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance
(Categories A-G), including direct Federal assistance, provided
under this declaration are authorized at 90 percent of total
eligible costs.
    (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. 2010-20779 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9773-9774]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04982]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0120; FRL-9990-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile
Refinish Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``National Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings''
(EPA ICR No. 1765.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0353) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2020. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0120, online using https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Mail Code D243-04, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-4991; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to regulate volatile organic compound emissions from the use
of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3),
the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a
schedule for their regulation (60 FR 15264). Automobile refinish
coatings were included on the list, and the standards for such coatings
are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B. The reports required under
the standards enable the EPA to identify all coating and coating
component manufacturers and importers in the United States and to
determine which coatings and coating components are subject to the
standards, based on dates of manufacture.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action as respondents are manufacturers and importers of
automobile refinish coatings and coating components. Manufacturers of
automobile refinish coatings and coating components fall within
standard industrial classification (SIC) 2851, ``Paints, Varnishes,
Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products,'' and North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code 325510, ``Paint and Coating
Manufacturing.'' Importers of automobile refinish coatings and coating
components fall within SIC 5198, ``Wholesale Trade: Paints, Varnishes,
and Supplies,'' NAICS code 422950, ``Paint, Varnish, and Supplies
Wholesalers,'' and NAICS code 444120, ``Paint and Wallpaper Stores.''
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 40 CFR part 59,
subpart B.
    Estimated number of respondents: 4 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 14 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $924 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no increase in hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

     Dated: March 8, 2019.
David Cozzie,
Acting Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2019-04982 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14213-14218]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04565]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97010; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7.19 Related to Pre-Trade Risk Controls

March 1, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on February 23, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' 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 Rule 7.19 pertaining to pre-trade
risk controls to make additional pre-trade risk controls available to
Entering Firms. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.19 pertaining to pre-trade
risk controls to make additional pre-trade risk controls available to
Entering Firms. The Exchange's affiliates NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (the ``Affiliate
Exchanges'') recently filed to make similar changes and, in those
filings, addressed several points raised in a comment letter submitted
in connection with filings since withdrawn by the Affiliate
Exchanges.\4\ The instant filing also addresses those same points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Release Act Nos. 96922 (February 14,
2023) (SR-NYSEAMER-2023-12); 96921 (February 14, 2023) (SR-NYSEArca-
2023-13); 96920 (February 14, 2023) (SR-NYSECHX-2023-08); and 96919
(February 14, 2023) (SR-NYSENAT-2023-07. See Letter to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, from
Gerard P. O'Connor, Vice President and General Counsel of Hyannis
Port Research, Inc. (``HPR Letter'') dated January 5, 2023,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2022-53/srnyseamer202253-20154615-322842.pdf. HPR is a provider of (among
other things) non-exchange based risk controls solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background and Purpose
    In 2020, in order to assist member organizations' efforts to manage
their risk, the Exchange amended its rules to add Rule 7.19 (Pre-Trade
Risk Controls),\5\ which established a set of optional pre-trade risk
controls by which Entering Firms and their designated Clearing Firms
\6\ could set credit limits and other pre-trade risk controls for an
Entering Firm's trading on the Exchange and authorize the Exchange to
take action if those credit limits or other pre-trade risk controls are
exceeded. Specifically, the Exchange added a Gross Credit Risk Limit, a
Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit, and a Single Order
Maximum Quantity Risk Limit \7\ (collectively, the ``2020 Risk
Controls'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88776 (April 29,
2020), 85 FR 26768 (May 5, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-17).
    \6\ The terms ``Entering Firm'' and ``Clearing Firm'' are
defined in Rule 7.19.
    \7\ The terms ``Gross Credit Risk Limit,'' ``Single Order
Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit, and ``Single Order Maximum
Quantity Risk Limit'' are defined in Rule 7.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to expand the list of the optional pre-
trade risk controls available to Entering Firms by adding several
additional pre-trade risk controls that would provide Entering Firms
with enhanced abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on
the Exchange. As detailed below, each of the proposed additional risk
controls is modeled on risk settings that are already available on the
Cboe,\8\ Nasdaq,\9\ MEMX,\10\ and MIAX Pearl \11\ equities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80611 (May 5,
2017), 82 FR 22045 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-24) (adopting
Rule 11.13, Interpretation and Policies .01); 80612 (May 5, 2017),
82 FR 22024 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsBYX-2017-07) (same); 80608 (May
5, 2017), 82 FR 22030 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGA-2017-07) (adopting
Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policies .01); 80607 (May 5, 2017),
82 FR 22027 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-16) (same).
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82479
(January 10, 2018), 83 FR 2471 (January 17, 2018) (SR-Nasdaq-2018-
002) (adopting IM-6200-1); 90577 (December 7, 2020), 85 FR 80202
(December 11, 2020) (SR-Nasdaq-2020-79) (moving IM-6200-1 into
Equity 6, Section 5). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
82545 (January 19, 2018), 83 FR 3834 (January 26, 2018) (SR-BX-2018-
001) (adopting Rule 4765 and commentary thereto); 91830 (May 10,
2021), 86 FR 26567 (May 14, 2021) (SR-BX-2021-012) (moving Rule 4765
and commentary into Equity 6, Section 5).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89581 (August 17,
2020), 85 FR 51799 (August 21, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-04) (adopting
Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policies .01).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 89563 (August 14,
2020), 85 FR 51510 (August 20, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-03) (adopting
Rule 2618(a)(1)(A)-(D)); 96205 (November 1, 2022), 87 FR 67080
(November 7, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-43) (adopting subsections (E)-(H)
to Rule 2618(a)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the 2020 Risk Controls, use of the pre-trade risk controls
proposed herein is optional, but all orders on the Exchange would pass
through these risk checks. As such, an Entering Firm that does not
choose to set limits pursuant to the new proposed pre-trade risk
controls would not achieve any latency advantage with respect to its
trading activity on the Exchange.
    The HPR Letter questions why the Exchange proposes to make all
orders on the Exchange pass through its risk checks, even if a
particular firm trading on the Exchange opts not to employ the
Exchange's pre-trade risk controls. The Exchange has chosen to
implement its risk checks ``symmetrically'' to all orders because that
is the functionality that clients have specifically requested, and it
is also the recognized best practice in this area. In a September 2021
white paper entitled ``Market Lens: Exchange Best Practices for
Reducing Operational Risk at Broker-Dealers,'' \12\ Citadel Securities
requested that exchanges assist firms in mitigating operational trading
risk by instituting exchange-based risk controls, but expressly
cautioned exchanges against segmenting orders into those that would
pass through risk checks versus those that would not. Citadel noted
that such segmentation of orders would ``produce incentives for all
firms to avoid using any controls, for fear of suffering a competitive
disadvantage.'' \13\ Instead, Citadel recommended that exchanges
``ensure orders follow the same order processing logic regardless of
which options or features are enabled,'' \14\ in order to eliminate any
competitive advantage or disadvantages for clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Citadel Securities, ``Market Lens: Exchange Best
Practices for Reducing Operational Risk at Broker-Dealers''
(``Citadel white paper'') dated September 2021, available at https://www.citadelsecurities.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/Citadel_Securities_Market-Lens_Sept_2021_Exchange-Best-Practices-for-Reducing-Operational-Risk.pdf. As Citadel put it (at page 5):
    Insufficiently well-designed and tested controls can create what
amount to penalties, driven by the time and computational power
required to perform various stages of checks, if applied only to
participants who opt-in to their use. This could produce incentives
for all firms to avoid using any controls, for fear of suffering a
competitive disadvantage. One way to address this, while maintaining
choice for member firms, is to ensure orders follow the same order
processing logic regardless of which options or features are
enabled--similar to how all colocated servers in an equalized data
center incur the same cabling distance to the matching engine,
regardless of their physical proximity to it. Additionally,
exchanges should vigorously test controls to ensure no latency
penalty exists in practice. Exchanges should actively publicize the
net-neutral risk controls.
    \13\ Id. at 5.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the model that the Exchange used in building the 2020 Risk
Controls that the Commission approved in 2020,\15\ and is the same
model that the Exchange proposes would apply to the additional pre-
trade risk checks proposed here. There is nothing unique about this
approach. Functionality on the Exchange's trading systems is often
applied uniformly to all orders, regardless of whether a particular
client has opted to use that functionality for a particular order. For
example, the Exchange's limit order price protection applies generally
to trading on the Exchange and orders with limit prices are not
processed more slowly than those without. Similarly, the Exchange's
trading systems check all orders for a variety of details and modifiers
(e.g., duplicative client order check, order capacity check, and self-
trade prevention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88776 (April 29,
2020), 85 FR 26768 (May 5, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-17) (order approving
the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls). The Commission concluded
that ``the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to provide
members with optional tools to manage their credit risk.'' Id. at
26770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that the risk checks of other exchanges,
on which the proposed rule is modeled, also apply symmetrically to all
orders.\16\

The Exchange also notes that the Citadel white paper cited above was
written ``in collaboration with several major exchanges, including
NYSE, Nasdaq, MIAX, MEMX, and BOX,'' suggesting that some or all of
those exchanges may also employ the symmetrical application of risk
checks that the Citadel white paper recommends.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., MEMX Risk FAQ, dated October 13, 2020, available
at https://info.memxtrading.com/us-equities-faq/#Bookmark21 (``The
risk checks are applied in a consistent manner to all participant
orders in order to mitigate risk without incurring latency
disadvantage.''); MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange User Manual, updated
October 2022, available at https://www.miaxequities.com/sites/default/files/website_file-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_User_Manual_October_2022.pdf, at 29 (stating
that all but two of the exchange's 14 risk checks ``are latency
equalized, i.e., there is no latency penalty for a member when
opting into and leveraging a risk protection available on the
exchange when entering an order as compared to a member not opting
into the risk protection when entering an order'').
    \17\ See Citadel white paper, supra note 12, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange expects that any latency added by the proposed
additional pre-trade risk controls would be de minimis. Specifically,
the Exchange expects that the latency added by the combination of the
2020 Risk Checks plus the proposed additional pre-trade risk controls
would be significantly less than one microsecond. Nevertheless, seizing
on the phrase ``de minimis,'' HPR argues that the Commission's 2016
interpretation regarding automated quotations under Regulation NMS \18\
applies here and should require the Exchange to justify this de minimis
latency change in a number of ways.\19\ But that Commission
interpretation pertains to ``intentional access delays,'' like speed
bumps--not to the issues here. The Exchange's pre-trade risk controls
are not an intentional access delay,\20\ but a functional enhancement
to the Exchange's trading systems, and, like any change to a trading
system's function or performance, may impact the overall speed of
trading on the Exchange in ways that can increase or decrease overall
latency. It is within the Exchange's prerogative as a market center in
the current hotly competitive environment to assess whether and when to
make functional enhancements to its trading systems. What is key under
the Exchange Act is that any anticipated latency effects of such
enhancements are applied uniformly, to all orders of all market
participants, in a non-discriminatory way--as the risk controls
proposed here would be. If market participants find that the latency
cost of such enhancements is not justified by the additional
functionality they offer, such market participants will vote with their
feet and send their order flow elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78102 (June
17, 2016), 81 FR 40785 (June 23, 2016) (File No. S7-03-16)
(Commission Interpretation Regarding Automated Quotations Under
Regulation NMS), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2016/34-78102.pdf.
    \19\ HPR Letter, supra note 4, at 5-6.
    \20\ Indeed, the Commission did not treat any of the other
exchanges' filings for pre-trade risk controls listed in supra notes
8-11 as ``intentional access delays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With one exception, the additional risk checks proposed here would
be a functional enhancement to the Exchange's Pillar gateway \21\ and
the risk checks would be applied to all orders on the Exchange. While
the Exchange strongly believes that symmetrical application of all pre-
trade risk controls is the appropriate approach (as explained above),
providing customers an opt-out ability would require the Exchange to
provide new order entry ports that would bypass the evaluation of such
pre-trade risk protections. Providing such new ports would burden
customers with additional costs to purchase such ports and to migrate
their order flow to such ports. The Exchange does not believe that the
added expense of creating such new ports (on the part of the Exchange)
or of purchasing and migrating to them (on the part of customers) is
justified in light of the de minimis latency imposed by the pre-trade
risk controls at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The one exception is the proposed pre-trade risk control in
paragraph (b)(2)(B), discussed below, which would permit an Entering
Firm to set dollar-based or percentage-based controls as to the
price of an order that are equal to or more restrictive than the
levels set out in Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B) regarding Limit Order Price
Protection. This risk check, like the Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection, is implemented in the matching engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new pre-trade risk controls proposed herein would be
available to be set by Entering Firms only. Clearing Firms designated
by an Entering Firm would continue to be able to view all pre-trade
risk controls set by the Entering Firm and to set the 2020 Risk
Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf. In addition, as specified
below, several of the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls would
not be immediately available to Floor brokers. The Exchange is in the
process of updating its technology to allow Floor brokers to connect to
the Exchange via Pillar gateways. Because the Exchange anticipates that
Floor brokers will transition to Pillar gateways in 2023, the Exchange
did not add the proposed new Pre-Trade Risk Controls to legacy gateways
that will be decommissioned. Once that transition is underway, the
Exchange will file a proposed rule change to extend such risk checks to
Floor brokers.
Proposed Amendment to Rule 7.19
    To accomplish this rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (a) to include a new paragraph (a)(3) that would define the
term ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls'' as all of the risk controls listed in
proposed paragraph (b), inclusive of the 2020 Risk Controls and the
proposed new risk controls.
    In proposed paragraph (b), the Exchange proposes to list all Pre-
Trade Risk Controls available to Entering Firms, which would include
the existing 2020 Risk Controls and the proposed new controls. The
Exchange proposes to move the definition of Gross Credit Risk Limit
from current paragraph (a)(5) to proposed paragraph (b)(1), with no
substantive change. Next, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph
(b)(2), which would list all available ``Single Order Risk Controls.''
The Exchange proposes to move the definitions of Single Order Maximum
Notional Value Risk Limit and Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit
from current paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) to proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(A), with no substantive change. Next, the Exchange proposes to
add paragraphs (b)(2)(B) through (b)(2)(F) to enumerate the proposed
new Single Order Risk Controls, as follows:
    (B) controls related to the price of an order (including
percentage-based and dollar-based controls);
    (C) controls related to the order types or modifiers that can be
utilized;
    (D) controls to restrict the types of securities transacted
(including but not limited to restricted securities);
    (E) controls to prohibit duplicative orders; and
    (F) controls related to the size of an order as compared to the
average daily volume of the security (including the ability to specify
the minimum average daily volume for the securities for which such
controls will be activated).
    Each of the Single Order Risk Controls in proposed paragraph (b)(2)
is substantively identical to risk settings available on the Cboe,
Nasdaq, MEMX, and MIAX Pearl \22\ equities exchanges. As such, the
proposed new Pre-Trade Risk Controls are familiar to market
participants and are not novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 8-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(2) to proposed
paragraph (c) and to re-name that paragraph ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls
Available to Clearing Firms.'' The Exchange proposes to renumber
current paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), and (b)(2)(C) as paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) accordingly. The Exchange proposes to smooth
the grammar in proposed paragraph (c)(1) by moving the ``or both''
language from the end of the sentence to the beginning, to clarify that

an Entering Firm that does not self-clear may designate its Clearing
Firm to take either or both of the following actions: viewing or
setting Pre-Trade Risk Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf. Finally,
in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B), the Exchange proposes to specify that
Clearing Firms so-designated may only set the 2020 Risk Controls on an
Entering Firm's behalf; the proposed new risk controls set out in
proposed paragraph (b)(2)(B) through (b)(2)(F) are available to be set
by Entering Firms only. The Exchange does not propose any changes to
proposed paragraph (c)(2), and with respect to proposed paragraph
(c)(3), proposes only to update internal cross-references.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(3) regarding
``Setting and Adjusting Pre-Trade Risk Controls'' to proposed paragraph
(d), and to renumber current paragraphs (b)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(B) as
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) accordingly. The Exchange
proposes to amend the text of proposed paragraph (d)(2) to state that
in addition to Pre-Trade Risk Controls being available to be set at the
MPID level or at one or more sub-IDs associated with that MPID, or
both, Pre-Trade Risk Controls related to the short selling of
securities, transacting in restricted securities, and the size of an
order compared to the average daily volume of a security must be set
per symbol.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(4) regarding
``Notifications'' to paragraph (e), with no changes.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (c) regarding
``Automated Breach Actions'' to proposed paragraph (f) and to renumber
current paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) as paragraphs
(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) accordingly. The Exchange proposes
no changes to the text of proposed paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3), or
(f)(4), other than to update an internal cross-reference. With respect
to proposed paragraph (f)(2) regarding ``Breach Action for Single Order
Risk Limits,'' the Exchange proposes to change the word ``Limits'' in
the heading to ``Controls.'' The Exchange further proposes to amend the
text of current paragraph (c)(2) to specify in paragraph (f)(2)(A) that
if an order would breach a price control under paragraph (b)(2)(B), it
would be rejected or canceled as specified in Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B) (the
``Limit Order Price Protection Rule''), while providing in paragraph
(f)(2)(B) that an order that breaches the designated limit of any other
Single Order Risk Control would be rejected.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (d) regarding
``Reinstatement of Entering Firm After Automated Breach Action'' to
proposed paragraph (g), with no changes.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (e) regarding
``Kill Switch Actions'' to proposed paragraph (h) with no changes,
other than to update an internal cross-reference.
    The Exchange proposes no changes to Commentary .01. The Exchange
proposes to add a new Commentary .02 to specify the interplay between
the Exchange's Limit Order Price Protection Rule and the price controls
that may be set by an Entering Firm pursuant to proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(B). Proposed Commentary .02 specifies that pursuant to paragraph
(b)(2)(B), an Entering Firm may always set dollar-based or percentage-
based controls as to the price of an order that are equal to or more
restrictive than the levels set out in Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B) regarding
Limit Order Price Protection (e.g., the greater of $0.15 or 10% (for
securities with a reference price up to and including $25.00), 5% (for
securities with a reference price of greater than $25.00 and up to and
including $50.00), or 3% (for securities with a reference price greater
than $50.00) away from the NBB or NBO). However, an Entering Firm may
set price controls under paragraph (b)(2)(B) that are less restrictive
than the levels in the Limit Order Price Protection Rule only (i)
outside of Core Trading Hours or (ii) with respect to LOC Orders or
Closing IO Orders.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Commentary .03 titled ``Floor
Brokers'' to specify how the Pre-Trade Risk Controls apply to Floor
brokers. The Exchange proposes to move the text of current Commentary
.02 into a new paragraph (a) of Commentary .03, with the following
proposed alterations. The Exchange proposes to provide additional
specificity to the text to state that ``either the Customer or the
Floor broker firm'' (instead of ``both the Customer and the Floor
broker firm'') may be considered an Entering Firm for the purpose of
the Pre-Trade Risk Controls in proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2)(A). The Exchange further proposes to add additional text to
paragraph (a) of Commentary .03 to specify that the Pre-Trade Risk
Controls described in paragraphs (b)(2)(B) through (b)(2)(F) will not
initially be available to Floor brokers and that the Exchange will file
a proposed rule change when such Pre-Trade Risk Controls become
available to Floor brokers.
    The Exchange proposes to move the text of current Commentary .03,
regarding manual transactions by a Floor broker and crossing
transactions pursuant to Rule 76, into a new paragraph (b) of
Commentary .03, without change.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .04 to insert the title
``DMMs'' and to move the current text of Commentary .04 into a new
paragraph (a) of Commentary .04, without change, except that the
Exchange proposes to update the current cross-reference to Rule
7.35(a)(8) to now cross-reference Rule 7.35(a)(9). The Exchange further
proposes to add new paragraph (b) of Commentary .04 to specify that
manually entered DMM Interest as defined in Rule 7.35(a)(9) will be
excluded from the Pre-Trade Risk Controls in paragraphs (b)(2)(C)
through (b)(2)(F).
Continuing Obligations of Member Organizations Under Rule 15c3-5
    The proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls described here are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the member organizations' own internal
systems, monitoring, and procedures related to risk management. The
Exchange does not guarantee that these controls will be sufficiently
comprehensive to meet all of a member organization's needs, the
controls are not designed to be the sole means of risk management, and
using these controls will not necessarily meet a member organization's
obligations required by Exchange or federal rules (including, without
limitation, the Rule 15c3-5 under the Act \23\ (``Rule 15c3-5'')). Use
of the Exchange's Pre-Trade Risk Controls will not automatically
constitute compliance with Exchange or federal rules and responsibility
for compliance with all Exchange and SEC rules remains with the member
organization.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \24\ See also Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19, which provides that
``[t]he pre-trade risk controls described in this Rule are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the member organization's own internal
systems, monitoring and procedures related to risk management and
are not designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange
Act. Responsibility for compliance with all Exchange and SEC rules
remains with the member organization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing and Implementation
    The Exchange anticipates completing the technological changes
necessary to implement the proposed rule change in the first quarter of
2023, but in any event no later than April 30, 2023. The Exchange
anticipates announcing the availability of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
introduced in this filing by Trader Update in the first quarter of
2023.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\25\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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,
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \27\ HPR argues that the Exchange should be compelled to submit
this proposal as a fee filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Exchange Act. See HPR Letter, supra note 4, at 6-8. But that
provision only applies to rule filings ``establishing or charging a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the [SRO] . . . .'' Because the
Exchange does not propose to charge any fees for the proposed
services here, Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) is inapplicable. Notably, the
Commission did not treat any of the other exchanges' filings for
pre-trade risk controls listed in supra notes 8-11 as fee filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the proposed additional
Pre-Trade Risk Controls would provide Entering Firms with enhanced
abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on the Exchange.
The proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are not novel; they are
based on existing risk settings already in place on the Cboe, Nasdaq,
MEMX, and MIAX Pearl equities exchanges \28\ and market participants
are already familiar with the types of protections that the proposed
risk controls afford. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls would provide a means to address
potentially market-impacting events, helping to ensure the proper
functioning of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra notes 8-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors and the public interest because the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are a form of impact mitigation that
will aid Entering Firms in minimizing their risk exposure and reduce
the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange
understands that member organizations implement a number of different
risk-based controls, including those required by Rule 15c3-5. The
controls proposed here will serve as an additional tool for Entering
Firms to assist them in identifying any risk exposure. The Exchange
believes the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist
Entering Firms in managing their financial exposure which, in turn,
could enhance the integrity of trading on the securities markets and
help to assure the stability of the financial system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by permitting Entering Firms to set price
controls under paragraph (b)(2)(B) that are equal to or more
restrictive than the levels in the Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection Rule, but preventing Entering Firms from setting price
controls that are less restrictive than those levels during Core
Trading Hours in most circumstances. The Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection Rule protects from aberrant trades, thus improving
continuous trading and price discovery. The Exchange believes that
Entering Firms should not be able to circumvent the protections of that
rule by setting lower levels during Core Trading Hours, except with
respect to orders that participate in the Closing Auction (e.g., LOC
and Closing IO Orders).\29\ But under the proposed rule, Entering Firms
seeking to further manage their exposure to aberrant trades would be
permitted to set price controls at levels that are more restrictive
than in the Exchange's Limit Order Price Protection Rule. Additionally,
because price controls set by an Entering Firm under paragraph
(b)(2)(B) would function as a form of limit order price protection, the
Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system for an
order that would breach such a price control to be rejected or canceled
as specified in the Limit Order Price Protection Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ LOC Orders and Closing IO orders are not subject to the
Limit Order Price Protection in Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's member organizations
because use of the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls is
optional and is not a prerequisite for participation on the Exchange.
In addition, because all orders on the Exchange would pass through the
risk checks, there would be no difference in the latency experienced by
member organizations who have opted to use the proposed additional Pre-
Trade Risk Controls versus those who have not opted to use them. The
Exchange does not believe it is unfairly discriminatory to have all
orders on the Exchange pass through the risk checks, even for member
organizations that opt not to use the Exchange's pre-trade risk
controls. As described above, the proposed risk checks are a functional
enhancement to the Exchange's trading systems that the Exchange
proposes to apply uniformly to all orders on the Exchange; by applying
them uniformly, the Exchange would avoid producing incentives for all
firms to avoid using the risk controls for fear of suffering a
competitive disadvantage. Additionally, any latency imposed by the pre-
trade risk controls proposed here is de minimis and would not have a
material impact on the order flow of member organizations that choose
to employ non-exchange providers (such as HPR) to provide them with
risk control solutions.

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. In fact, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will have a positive effect on competition
because, by providing Entering Firms additional means to monitor and
control risk, the proposed rule will increase confidence in the proper
functioning of the markets. The Exchange believes the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering Firms in
managing their financial exposure which, in turn, could enhance the
integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the
stability of the financial system. As a result, the level of
competition should increase as public confidence in the markets is
solidified.
    In its letter, HPR contends that it is an unnecessary burden on
competition for the Exchange to have all orders--even the orders of
member organizations that choose not to use the proposed pre-trade risk
controls--to pass through the Exchange's checks because doing so will
reduce customer demand for HPR's risk control services. HPR argues that
by imposing latency from its risk checks on all orders, the Exchange
has created a ``latency tax'' that would encourage customers to use the
Exchange's risk controls instead of third-party risk

solutions like HPR's.\30\ These assertions are factually incorrect and
obscure the very real differences between the Exchange's pre-trade risk
controls and the services that HPR offers. The Exchange understands
that HPR's enterprise risk management solutions, like those of its
competitors, permit its clients to track aggregated risk across all
markets and provide consolidated risk management capabilities. In
contrast, exchange based-solutions such as the Exchange's only offer
tools to manage risk across the Exchanges and its affiliate exchanges
(e.g., the NYSE Group exchanges). The Exchange's proposed risk checks
would not and could not replace HPR's far broader offering. In
addition, as the Exchange made clear in its filing for the 2020 Risk
Controls and repeats here, the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls are
not a complete Rule 15c3-5 solution. The Exchange's risk controls are
meant to supplement, and not replace, a member organization's own
internal risk management systems (which firms may outsource to
providers like HPR), and the Exchange's controls are not designed to be
the sole means of risk management that any firm uses. Additionally, any
latency imposed by the Pre-Trade Risk Controls proposed here is de
minimis and would not have a material impact on the order flow of
member organizations that choose to employ non-exchange providers (such
as HPR) to provide them with risk control solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See HPR Letter, supra note 4, at 4 (claiming the Exchange
has ``architected the proposed risk controls to give [itself] an
unfair and anti-competitive latency advantage over non-exchange
offerings provided by broker-dealers or vendors such as HPR.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes it would be an unfair burden on
competition for the Commission to suspend and ultimately disapprove the
pre-trade risk controls proposed here, where substantially identical
controls are already in place on numerous of the Exchange's competitor
exchanges.\31\ Since 2017, equities exchanges have been adding pre-
trade risk controls to their trading systems. It would be an
unjustifiable burden on competition and on the Exchange for the
Commission to permit all equities exchanges to offer such functionality
except for the Exchange and its affiliates. Specifically, the Exchange
would be at a significant competitive disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis
other equities exchanges that already offer the type of pre-trade risk
controls proposed in this filing as member organizations may choose to
direct order flow away from the Exchange until it is able to offer such
competing pre-trade risk controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra notes 8-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
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 \34\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \35\ 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 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) \36\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2023-14 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-NYSE-2023-14. 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-NYSE-2023-14 and should be submitted on
or before March 28, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04565 Filed 3-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P