Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64475 

1See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting 

Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, 

June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. 

4679). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

and would support the identified need 

for greater regional Tribal resources. 

i. How would you see a tribal arts 

council benefiting your community? 

ii. What regional needs would apply 

to tribal arts councils? 

iii. Would a government point of 

contact specific to arts grants be 

beneficial? 

iv. What support would Tribal Arts 

Councils require from NEA? 

v. Do you currently work with your 

State and/or Local Arts Agency? 

Dated: August 24, 2023. 

RaShaunda Thomas, 

Deputy Director, Office of Administrative 

Services & Contracts, National Endowment 

for the Arts. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19550 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2023–265 and CP2023–268; 

MC2023–267 and CP2023–270; MC2023–268 

and CP2023–271] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: September 

21, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the Market Dominant or 

the Competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the Market 

Dominant or the Competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s website (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3011.301.1

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern Market Dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 

CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

Competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 

39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

1. Docket No(s).: MC2023–265 and 

CP2023–268; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express 

International, Priority Mail International 

& First-Class Package International 

Service Contract 27 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing 

Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance 

Date: September 13, 2023; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: 

September 21, 2023. 

2. Docket No(s).: MC2023–267 and 

CP2023–270; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority 

Mail & USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 8 to Competitive Product List 

and Notice of Filing Materials Under 

Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: September 

13, 2023; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 

3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; 

Comments Due: September 21, 2023. 

3. Docket No(s).: MC2023–268 and 

CP2023–271; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 3 to Competitive Product List 

and Notice of Filing Materials Under 

Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: September 

13, 2023; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 

3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; 

Comments Due: September 21, 2023. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20263 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–98375; File No. SR–BX– 

2023–022] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Equity 7, 

Section 118(e) 

September 13, 2023. 

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 1, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. 

(‘‘BX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Exchange’s transaction fees at Equity 7, 

Section 118(e), as described further 

below. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/bx/rules, at the principal office 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64476 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

3Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a 

Non-Display Order Attribute submitted to the 

Exchange by a Retail Member Organization (as 

defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an 

agency Order, or riskless principal Order that 

satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The 

Retail Order must reflect trading interest of a 

natural person with no change made to the terms 

of the underlying order of the natural person with 

respect to price (except in the case of a market order 

that is changed to a marketable limit order) or side 

of market and that does not originate from a trading 

algorithm or any other computerized methodology. 

See Rule 4702(b)(6). 

4Retail Price Improving (‘‘RPI’’) Orders shall 

mean an Order Type with a Non-Display Order 

Attribute that is held on the Exchange Book in order 

to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better 

than the NBBO through a special execution process 

described in Rule 4780. A Retail Price Improving 

Order may be entered in price increments of $0.001. 

RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as ‘‘RPI 

Interest.’’ See Rule 4702(b)(5). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

7NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 

2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782–83 

(December 9, 2008) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–21)). 

8Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 

(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’). 

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 the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange operates on the ‘‘takermaker’’ model, whereby it generally 

pays credits to members that take 

liquidity and charges fees to members 

that provide liquidity. Currently, the 

Exchange has a schedule, at Equity 7, 

Section 118(e), which consists of several 

different credits and fees for Retail 

Orders 3 and Retail Price Improvement 

Orders 4 under Rule 4780 (Retail Price 

Improvement Program). 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend the Exchange’s 

schedule of fees at Equity 7, Section 

118(e). Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to amend the qualifying 

criteria for an existing fee for RPI Orders 

that provide liquidity. 

Currently, the Exchange charges a 

$0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI 

Orders entered by a member that (i) 

quotes RPI Orders in at least 1,200 

symbols on average per day and (ii) 

provides liquidity through RPI Orders 

equal to or exceeding an average daily 

volume of 2,500,000 shares. The 

Exchange proposes to amend the 

qualifying criteria for the $0.0018 fee by 

eliminating the requirement to quote 

RPI Orders in at least 1,200 symbols on 

average per day. Thus, a member could 

qualify for the $0.0018 per share 

executed fee for RPI Orders if the 

member provides liquidity through RPI 

Orders equal to or exceeding an average 

daily volume of 2,500,000 shares. 

The Exchange hopes that the less 

strict qualifying criteria (i.e., removing 

the requirement to quote RPI Orders in 

at least 1,200 symbols on average per 

day) will encourage members to 

increase liquidity providing activity in 

RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the 

proposal is effective in achieving this 

purpose, then the quality of the 

Exchange’s market will improve, 

particularly with respect to RPI and 

Retail Orders to the benefit of all 

participants, especially those who 

submit RPI and Retail Orders. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with section 6(b) 

of the Act,5 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 

of the Act,6 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. 

The Exchange’s proposed change to 

its schedule of fees is reasonable in 

several respects. As a threshold matter, 

the Exchange is subject to significant 

competitive forces in the market for 

equity securities transaction services 

that constrain its pricing determinations 

in that market. The fact that this market 

is competitive has long been recognized 

by the courts. In NetCoalition v. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ‘‘[n]o 

one disputes that competition for order 

flow is ‘fierce.’ . . . As the SEC 

explained, ‘[i]n the U.S. national market 

system, buyers and sellers of securities, 

and the broker-dealers that act as their 

order-routing agents, have a wide range 

of choices of where to route orders for 

execution’; [and] ‘no exchange can 

afford to take its market share 

percentages for granted’ because ‘no 

exchange possesses a monopoly, 

regulatory or otherwise, in the execution 

of order flow from broker 

dealers’. . . .’’ 7

The Commission and the courts have 

repeatedly expressed their preference 

for competition over regulatory 

intervention in determining prices, 

products, and services in the securities 

markets. In Regulation NMS, while 

adopting a series of steps to improve the 

current market model, the Commission 

highlighted the importance of market 

forces in determining prices and SRO 

revenues and, also, recognized that 

current regulation of the market system 

‘‘has been remarkably successful in 

promoting market competition in its 

broader forms that are most important to 

investors and listed companies.’’ 8

Numerous indicia demonstrate the 

competitive nature of this market. For 

example, clear substitutes to the 

Exchange exist in the market for equity 

security transaction services. The 

Exchange is only one of several equity 

venues to which market participants 

may direct their order flow. Competing 

equity exchanges offer similar tiered 

pricing structures to that of the 

Exchange, including schedules of 

rebates and fees that apply based upon 

members achieving certain volume 

thresholds. 

Within this environment, market 

participants can freely and often do shift 

their order flow among the Exchange 

and competing venues in response to 

changes in their respective pricing 

schedules. As such, the proposal 

represents a reasonable attempt by the 

Exchange to increase its liquidity and 

market share relative to its competitors. 

The Exchange believes it is reasonable 

and equitable to amend the qualifying 

criteria for the $0.0018 per share 

executed fee for RPI Orders by 

eliminating the requirement to quote 

RPI Orders in at least 1,200 symbols on 

average per day. As discussed above, the 

Exchange’s goal is to increase liquidity 

adding activity in RPI Orders on its 

platform. It is reasonable and equitable 

to address this need by easing the 

qualification requirements as an 

incentive for members to increase their 

liquidity activity in RPI Orders on the 

Exchange. If the proposal is effective in 

achieving this purpose, then the quality 

of the Exchange’s market will improve, 

particularly with respect to RPI and 

Retail Orders to the benefit of all 

participants, especially those who 

submit RPI and Retail Orders. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 64477 

9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. 

As an initial matter, the Exchange 

believes that nothing about its volumebased tiered pricing model is inherently 

unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing 

model that is well-established and 

ubiquitous in today’s economy among 

firms in various industries—from cobranded credit cards to grocery stores to 

cellular telephone data plans—that use 

it to reward the loyalty of their best 

customers that provide high levels of 

business activity and incent other 

customers to increase the extent of their 

business activity. It is also a pricing 

model that the Exchange and its 

competitors have long employed with 

the assent of the Commission. It is fair 

because it incentivizes customer activity 

that increases liquidity, enhances price 

discovery, and improves the overall 

quality of the equity markets. 

The Exchange intends for its proposal 

to improve market quality for all 

members that submit RPI and Retail 

Orders on the Exchange and by 

extension attract more liquidity to the 

market, improving market wide quality 

and price discovery. Although net 

adders of liquidity for RPI Orders will 

benefit most from the proposal, this 

result is fair insofar as increased 

liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders 

will help to improve market quality and 

the attractiveness of the Exchange to all 

existing and prospective retail 

participants. 

Any participant that is dissatisfied 

with the proposal is free to shift their 

order flow to competing venues that 

provide more generous pricing or less 

stringent qualifying criteria. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

Intramarket Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that its 

proposal will place any category of 

Exchange participant at a competitive 

disadvantage. The proposal eases the 

qualification requirements for the 

$0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI 

Orders. Members may modify their 

businesses so that they can meet the 

required threshold and pay lower 

charges. As noted above, all members of 

the Exchange will benefit from any 

increase in market activity that the 

proposal effectuates. Moreover, 

members are free to trade on other 

venues to the extent they believe that 

the fees assessed, and credits provided, 

are not attractive. As one can observe by 

looking at any market share chart, price 

competition between exchanges is 

fierce, with liquidity and market share 

moving freely between exchanges in 

reaction to fee and credit changes. 

Intermarket Competition 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposed modification to its schedule of 

fees will not impose a burden on 

competition because the Exchange’s 

execution services are completely 

voluntary and subject to extensive 

competition both from the other live 

exchanges and from off-exchange 

venues, which include alternative 

trading systems that trade national 

market system stock. The Exchange 

notes that it operates in a highly 

competitive market in which market 

participants can readily favor competing 

venues if they deem fee levels at a 

particular venue to be excessive, or 

rebate opportunities available at other 

venues to be more favorable. In such an 

environment, the Exchange must 

continually adjust its fees to remain 

competitive with other exchanges and 

with alternative trading systems that 

have been exempted from compliance 

with the statutory standards applicable 

to exchanges. Because competitors are 

free to modify their own fees in 

response, and because market 

participants may readily adjust their 

order routing practices, the Exchange 

believes that the degree to which fee 

changes in this market may impose any 

burden on competition is extremely 

limited. 

The proposed change is reflective of 

this competition because, as a threshold 

issue, the Exchange is a relatively small 

market so its ability to burden 

intermarket competition is limited. In 

this regard, even the largest U.S. 

equities exchange by volume has less 

than 20% market share, which in most 

markets could hardly be categorized as 

having enough market power to burden 

competition. Moreover, as noted above, 

price competition between exchanges is 

fierce, with liquidity and market share 

moving freely between exchanges in 

reaction to fee and credit changes. This 

is in addition to free flow of order flow 

to and among off-exchange venues 

which comprises more than 40% of 

industry volume. 

In sum, the Exchange intends for the 

proposed change to its fees to increase 

member incentives to engage in the 

addition of liquidity on the Exchange. If 

the change proposed herein is 

unattractive to market participants, it is 

likely that the Exchange will lose 

market share as a result. Accordingly, 

the Exchange does not believe that the 

proposed change will impair the ability 

of members or competing order 

execution venues to maintain their 

competitive standing in the financial 

markets. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were 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.9

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 (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

BX–2023–022 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–BX–2023–022. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
64478 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Notices 

10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

98225 (August 16, 2023), 88 FR 60255 (August 31, 

2023) (SR–NASDAQ–2023–030). The Exchange’s 

proposal differs from that of Nasdaq in that it 

excludes changes to Order Types and Attributes 

that are inapplicable to the Exchange due to its 

absence of opening and closing crosses. 

4Pursuant to Rule 4702(b)(7)(A), a ‘‘Market Maker 

Peg Order’’ is an Order Type designed to allow a 

Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided 

quotation at a displayed price that is compliant 

with the quotation requirements for Market Makers 

set forth in Equity 2, Section 5(a)(2). The displayed 

price of the Market Maker Peg Order is set with 

reference to a ‘‘Reference Price’’ in order to keep the 

displayed price of the Market Maker Peg Order 

within a bounded price range. The Reference Price 

for a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is the 

then-current National Best Bid (National Best 

Offer), or if no such National Best Bid or National 

Best Offer, the most recent reported last-sale eligible 

trade from the responsible single plan processor for 

that day, or if none, the previous closing price of 

the security as adjusted to reflect any corporate 

actions (e.g., dividends or stock splits) in the 

security. 

5 ‘‘Reserve Size’’ is, in part, an Order Attribute 

that ‘‘permits a Participant to stipulate that an 

Order Type that is displayed may have its displayed 

size replenished from additional non-displayed 

size.’’ Rule 4703(h). The Rule also states that 

Reserve ‘‘is not available for Orders that are not 

displayed; provided, however, that if a Participant 

enters Reserve Size for a Non-Displayed Order with 

a Time-in-Force of IOC, the full size of the Order, 

including Reserve Size, will be processed as a NonDisplayed Order.’’ Id. In addition to the change 

proposed above, the Exchange proposes to 

eliminate from the immediately preceding language 

‘‘with a Time-in-Force of IOC’’ because the 

Exchange does not assess a reason to include this 

qualifier. The statement that a Non-Displayed Order 

with Reserve will be entirely non-displayed is true 

even as to Non-Displayed Orders with other TIFs. 

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 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–BX–2023–022 and should be 

submitted on or before October 10, 

2023. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.10

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20167 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–98378; File No. SR–BX– 

2023–023] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Equity 4, 

Rules 4702 and 4703 

September 13, 2023. 

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on 

September 5, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. 

(‘‘BX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Equity 4, Rules 4702 and 4703. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/bx/rules, at the principal office 

of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes amendments 

to its Rules to address inconsistencies 

between the Rule Text and observed 

System behavior as well as behavior 

unaccounted for in the existing Rule 

text, as follows. This proposal is similar 

to a rule change filed by the Exchange’s 

sister exchange, the Nasdaq Stock 

Market, LLC on August 16, 2023.3

First Rule Change 

The first proposed rule change 

addresses an edge case of inconsistency 

between the Rule text and System 

behavior, this time regarding Market 

Maker Peg Orders.4 Rule 4702(b)(7)(A) 

states that, if after entry of a Market 

Maker Peg Order that has a displayed 

price based on the NBBO, and the 

NBBO subsequently shifts such that the 

displayed price of the Market Maker Peg 

Order to buy (sell) is equal to or greater 

(less) than the National Best Bid (or 

National Best Offer), the Market Maker 

Peg Order will not be subsequently 

repriced until a new reference price is 

established that is more aggressive than 

the displayed price of the Market Maker 

Peg Order. System testing revealed that 

the System does not reprice Market 

Maker Peg Orders in this scenario, but 

only if such Orders are in round lot 

sizes, whereas it does reprice such 

Orders when they are in odd lot sizes. 

After evaluation, the Exchange 

determined to maintain this System 

behavior and amend the Rule to 

conform to it. The Exchange proposes to 

do so because the existing language 

proscribing repricing only makes sense 

within the context of round lot Market 

Maker Peg Orders, which this scenario 

would set a new NBBO and when they 

do so, cannot reprice with respect to the 

reference price they just set. By contrast, 

odd lot Market Maker Peg Orders are 

ineligible to set the NBBO, and do not 

have this same problem. Accordingly, 

the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 

4702(b)(7)(A) to clarify that the 

prohibition against repricing only 

applies to Market Maker Peg Orders in 

round lot sizes. 

Second Rule Change 

The second proposal would amend 

Equity 4, Rule 4703(h), to correct its 

description of behavior of the NonDisplayed portion of Orders with the 

Reserve Attribute.5 Rule 4703(h) 

provides as follows, in pertinent part: 

In all cases, if the remaining size of the 

Non-Displayed Order is less than the fixed or 

random amount stipulated by the Participant, 

the full remaining size of the Non-Displayed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1