66114 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

51See id. at 13194. 

52See id. The Exchange used a regression analysis 

to test whether the spread of NDX contracts 

changed after the introduction of p.m.-settled index 

options. See id. The regression model is meant to 

study the effect of the introduction of Friday p.m.- 

settled NDX options expirations (on all but the third 

Friday of the month) that occurred in January 2018. 

See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6. 

53See Notice, 88 FR at 13194. 

54See id. 

55 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

56 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

57 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3An Opening Sweep is a one-sided order entered 

by a Market Maker through SQF for execution 

against eligible interest in the System during the 

Opening Process. This order type is not subject to 

any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15, 

except for Automated Quotation Adjustments. The 

Opening Sweep will only participate in the 

Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section 

8(b)(1) and will be cancelled upon the open if not 

executed. See Options 3, Section 7(t). 

4An Opening Only (‘‘OPG’’) order is entered with 

a TIF of ‘‘OPG’’. This order can only be executed 

in the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, 

Section 8. This order type is not subject to any 

protections listed in Options 3, Section 15, except 

Size Limitation. Any portion of the order that is not 

executed during the Opening Process is cancelled. 

OPG orders may not route. See Supplementary 

Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

96817(February 6, 2023), 88 FR 8922 (February 10, 

2023) (SR–GEMX–2023–02) (Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 

To Amend Its Rules in Connection With a 

Technology Migration to Enhanced Nasdaq 

Functionality) (‘‘SR–GEMX–2023–02’’). 

(other than third-Friday-of-the-month) 

led to changes in spreads for those 

contracts.51 The sample timeframe was 

from July 2017 through August 2018.52

The relative quoted spread decreased 

during first part of 2018 and increase in 

May and June 2018; however, it 

remained comparable to the 2017 

average.53 Overall, the Exchange 

observes no evidence of deterioration of 

spreads associated with the introduction 

of p.m.-settled NDX options.54

The Commission believes that the 

evidence contained in the Exchange’s 

filing, the Exchange’s pilot data and 

reports, and the Pilot Memo analysis 

demonstrate that the Programs have 

benefitted investors and other market 

participants by providing more flexible 

trading and hedging opportunities while 

also having no disruptive impact on the 

market. The market for p.m.-settled 

options has grown in size over the 

course of the Programs, and analysis of 

the pilot data did not identify any 

significant economic impact on the 

underlying component securities 

surrounding the close as a result of 

expiring p.m.-settled options nor did it 

indicate a deterioration in market 

quality (as measured by relative quoted 

spreads) for an existing product when a 

new p.m.-settled expiration was 

introduced. Further, significant changes 

in closing procedures in the decades 

since index options moved to a.m. 

settlement may also serve to mitigate the 

potential impact of p.m.-settled index 

options on the underlying cash markets. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds 

that the proposed rule change, as 

modified by Amendment No. 1, is 

consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act 55 and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,56 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–ISE–2023– 

08), as modified by Amendment No. 1, 

be, and hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.57

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20808 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–98444; File No. SR–GEMX– 

2023–11] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Options 3, 

Section 13 Related to PIM 

September 20, 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 8, 2023, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC 

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

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III, below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 7, Types of Orders 

and Order and Quote Protocols; Options 

3, Section 11, Auction Mechanisms; and 

Options 3, Section 13, Price 

Improvement Mechanism for Crossing 

Transactions. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/gemx/rules, at the principal 

office of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

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

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 7, Types of Orders 

and Order and Quote Protocols; Options 

3, Section 11, Auction Mechanisms; and 

Options 3, Section 13, Price 

Improvement Mechanism for Crossing 

Transactions. Each change is described 

below. 

Options 3, Section 7 

Opening Only 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 7(t), Opening 

Sweep 3 and Supplementary Material 

.02(e) to Options 3, Section 7 related to 

Opening Only 4 or ‘‘OPG’’ orders. The 

proposed rule text was adopted as part 

of a planned System migration.5

Options 3, Section 7(t) currently 

provides that an Opening Sweep would 

not be subject to any protections listed 

in Options 3, Section 15, except 

Automated Quotation Adjustments in 

Options 3, Section 15. Supplementary 

Material .02(e) to Options 3, Section 7 

currently provides that an OPG Order 

would not be subject to any protections 

listed in Options 3, Section 15, except 

Size Limitation. At this time, the 

Exchange proposes to amend the rule 

text to specify that an Opening Sweep 

and an OPG Order would be subject to 

the Market Wide Risk Protection in 

Options 3, Section 15. 

The Market Wide Risk Protection in 

Options 3, Section 15(a)(1)(C) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 66115 

6 GEMX’s System will round up to the nearest 

whole number during allocation in the Facilitation 

Mechanism. 7See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D). 

automatically removes Member orders 

when certain firm-set thresholds are 

met. Specifically, the Market Wide Risk 

Protection requires all Members to 

provide parameters for the order entry 

and execution rate protections. The 

Market Wide Risk Protection would 

apply to an Opening Sweep and an OPG 

Order because it captures the order 

entry and execution rate for both 

Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders that 

are entered in the Opening Process as 

described in Options 3, Section 8. The 

Exchange believes the availability of the 

Market Wide Risk Protection during the 

Opening Process would assist Members 

in managing their pre-open risk by 

allowing Members to adhere to their 

firm thresholds. The Exchange notes 

that other risk protections within 

Options 3, Section 15 do not apply to 

either an Opening Sweep or an Opening 

Only Order because the risk protection 

either relies on the BBO, which is 

available after the Opening Process, or 

the risk protection is optional. Finally, 

the Exchange also proposes a technical 

amendment to capitalize the word 

‘‘orders’’ in Supplementary Material 

.02(e) to Options 3, Section 7. 

Options 3, Sections 11 and 13 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(i) related to 

the Facilitation Mechanism. Currently, 

the last sentence in Options 3, Section 

11(b)(4)(i) provides that a facilitation 

order will be cancelled at the end of an 

exposure period if an execution would 

take place at a price that is inferior to 

the best bid (offer) on GEMX. The 

Exchange proposes to amend this 

sentence to state, the ‘‘Exchange best bid 

(offer)’’ and remove the phrase ‘‘on 

Nasdaq GEMX.’’ Additionally, the 

Exchange proposes to add the following 

rule text to the end of the sentence, ‘‘or 

if there is a Priority Customer order on 

the same side Exchange best bid (offer) 

at the same price as the facilitation price 

unless the Facilitation Order can 

execute at a price that is better than the 

same side Priority Customer Order.’’ 

Today, a facilitation order must execute 

at a price that is better than the same 

side BBO if there is a Priority Customer 

order on the same side. The proposed 

rule text is being amended to align to 

current System functionality which 

prevents a Facilitation Order from 

trading ahead of a Priority Customer 

Order. As such, a Priority Customer 

order on the same side of the offer must 

be considered when executing a 

Facilitation Order. The Exchange 

proposes to add similar language to the 

last sentence of Options 3, Section 

11(d)(3)(A) related to the Solicited 

Order Mechanism. The Exchange notes 

that these amendments do not amend 

the current System functionality. 

The Exchange proposes to add a new 

Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(iv) to 

describe the allocation percentage that 

an Electronic Access Member is able to 

obtain in the Facilitation Mechanism. 

Today, under the current System 

operation, the facilitating Electronic 

Access Member may not receive an 

allocation percentage, at the final price 

point, of more than 40% of the original 

size of the Facilitation Order with one 

or multiple competing quote(s), order(s), 

or Response(s), except for rounding,6

when competing quotes, orders, or 

Responses have contracts available for 

execution. Options 3, Section 

11(b)(4)(ii) makes clear that the 

facilitating Electronic Access Member 

will be allocated up to forty percent 

(40%) (or such lower percentage 

requested by the Member) of the original 

size of the facilitation order, but only 

after better-priced Responses, orders 

and quotes, as well as Priority Customer 

Orders and Priority Customer Responses 

at the facilitation price, are executed in 

full at such price point. The proposed 

rule text expressly notes that the 

allocation percentage will not be 

exceeded except for rounding purposes. 

This language represents current System 

functionality. The Exchange proposes to 

add similar language to Options 3, 

Section 13(d)(7) related to the Price 

Improvement Mechanism for Crossing 

Transactions to note the limitations 

with respect to allocations. 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Supplementary Material .04 to Options 

3, Section 11 to replace the word 

‘‘quotes’’ with ‘‘Responses’’ in the Split 

Price description. Orders and responses 

in the market that receive the benefit of 

the facilitation price may receive 

executions at Split Prices. This change 

to the rule text is intended to utilize the 

defined term ‘‘Response’’ which 

pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(b)(3) 

may be priced at the price of the order 

to be facilitated or at a better price and 

will only be considered up to the size 

of the order to be facilitated. 

The Exchange proposes to add a new 

Supplementary Material .08 to Options 

3, Section 11 to provide that, today, if 

an allocation would result in less than 

one contract, then one contract will be 

allocated. The Exchange does not 

allocate fractional contracts. This 

language represents the current System 

functionality. The Exchange proposes to 

add the same sentence within new 

Supplementary Material .09 to Options 

3, Section 13 regarding a PIM. Phlx has 

similar language.7

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) through (3) 

to harmonize the language within the 

PIM entry checks with language within 

Nasdaq ISE, LLC’s (‘‘ISE’’) PIM, Nasdaq 

MRX, LLC’s (‘‘MRX’’) PIM, Nasdaq Phlx 

LLC’s (‘‘Phlx’’) PIXL and BX’s PRISM, 

without changing the substantive 

operations of these price improvement 

auctions. The Exchange believes that by 

utilizing similar language, Members will 

be able to compare GEMX’s PIM entry 

checks with similar mechanisms on 

Nasdaq affiliated markets. 

GEMX proposes to add ‘‘a price that 

is’’ to the end of Options 3, Section 

13(b)(1) and add new subparagraphs (A) 

and (B) to distinguish opposite and 

same side checks. The opposite side 

check is currently spelled out in the 

current rule text, however the same side 

check does not specify the NBBO check. 

Today, if the Agency Order is for less 

than 50 option contracts, and if the 

difference between the NBBO or the 

difference between the internal best bid 

and the internal best offer is $0.01, the 

Crossing Transaction must be entered at 

a price that is, on the same side of the 

Agency Order equal or better than the 

NBBO and better than any Limit Order 

or quote on GEMX’s order book. The 

Exchange believes that the addition of 

the NBBO check will add clarity to the 

rule text because the NBBO check is 

always relevant in the same side check 

to avoid a trade-through. The Exchange 

also proposes to capitalize ‘‘Limit 

Order,’’ remove the word ‘‘Nasdaq’’ 

before ‘‘GEMX’’ and remove other 

extraneous words as the sentence has 

been rearranged. 

Next, the Exchange proposes to 

bifurcate the entry check for Agency 

Orders of 50 options contracts or more 

for the account of a Priority Customer 

from the entry checks for the account of 

a broker dealer or any other person or 

entity that is not a Priority Customer 

similar to other Nasdaq affiliated 

markets to provide consistent 

formatting. While the entry checks for 

new Options 3, Section 13(b)(2) and 

(b)(3) will not differ, the Exchange 

believes that retaining the same rule text 

format across its Nasdaq affiliated 

markets will allow for an easier 

comparison. To that end, the Exchange 

proposes to amend Options 3, Section 

13(b)(2) to format it similar to Options 

3, Section 13(b)(1). The Exchange 

proposes to add ‘‘for the account of a 

Priority Customer’’ to (b)(2) to 

distinguish it from (b)(3) which 

addresses the account of a broker dealer 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
66116 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

8For example, if the market is 0.98 bid and 0.99 

offer, a Priority Customer PIM Order to buy for less 

than 50 contracts must be stopped at 0.98 cents in 

this scenario to be accepted into a PIM Auction, 

provided there is no resting order or quote on the 

Exchange order book at 0.98 in which case the PIM 

Order would be rejected. 

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97126 

(March 13, 2023), 88 FR 16485 (March 17, 2023) 

(SR–GEMX–2023–04) (Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 

To Delay the Implementation of Certain Trading 

Functionality) (‘‘SR–GEMX–2023–04’’). 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

12See also GEMX Options 3, Section 13(d)(1), ‘‘At 

a given price, ‘Priority Customer Interest’ (Priority 

Customer Orders and Improvement Orders from 

Priority Customers) is executed in full before ‘nonPriority Customer Interest’ (non-Priority Customer 

Orders, Improvement Orders from non-Priority 

Customers and Market Maker quotes).’’ 

or any other person or entity that is not 

a Priority Customer. Options 3, Section 

13(b)(2)(A) will also add rule text to 

address the opposite side of the market, 

which is not explicitly noted. Proposed 

Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(A) will 

provide that if the Agency Order is for 

the account of a Priority Customer, and 

such order is for 50 option contracts or 

more, or if the difference between the 

NBBO or the difference between the 

internal BBO is greater than $0.01, a 

Crossing Transaction must be entered 

only at a price that is equal to or better 

than the internal BBO and NBBO on the 

opposite side of the market from the 

Agency Order. Further, Options 3, 

Section 13(b)(2)(B) will explicitly note 

the entry check on the same side of the 

market and similar to Options 3, Section 

13(b)(1) will include the NBBO check. 

Proposed Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(B) 

will provide that if the Agency Order is 

for the account of a Priority Customer, 

and such order is for 50 option contracts 

or more, or if the difference between the 

NBBO or the difference between the 

internal BBO is greater than $0.01, a 

Crossing Transaction must be entered 

only on the same side of the market as 

the Agency Order, at a price that is at 

least $0.01 better than any Limit Order 

or quote on the GEMX order book and 

equal to or better than the NBBO.8 The 

Exchange believes that the addition of 

the NBBO check will add clarity to the 

rule text because the NBBO check is 

always relevant in the same side check 

to avoid a trade-through. The Exchange 

also proposes to capitalize ‘‘Limit 

Order,’’ remove the word ‘‘Nasdaq’’ 

before ‘‘GEMX’’ and remove other 

extraneous words as the sentence has 

been rearranged. 

As noted herein, proposed Options 3, 

Section 13(b)(3) will mirror Options 3, 

Section 13(b)(2) except that it will refer 

to the account of a broker dealer or any 

other person or entity that is not a 

Priority Customer. The Exchange also 

proposes to renumber the remainder of 

the paragraphs within Options 3, 

Section 13(b). 

Implementation 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

Opening Sweep and Opening Only rule 

text only, within Options 3, Section 7, 

with its planned migration to enhanced 

Nasdaq functionality. Similar to SR– 

GEMX–2023–04,9 the Exchange intends 

to begin implementation of the 

amendments to the Opening Sweep and 

Opening Only rule text within Options 

3, Section 7 prior to December 29, 2023. 

The Exchange would commence its 

implementation with a limited symbol 

migration and continue to migrate 

symbols over several weeks. The 

Exchange will issue an Options Trader 

Alert to Members to provide notification 

of the symbols that will migrate and the 

relevant dates. The other rule 

amendments would be operative 30 

days from the effective date. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with section 6(b) 

of the Act,10 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11

in particular, in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade and to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

Options 3, Section 7 

Opening Only 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 7(t), Opening Sweeps 

and Supplementary Material .02(e) to 

Options 3, Section 7 related to OPG 

Orders is consistent with the Act and 

the protection of investors and the 

general public because the Market Wide 

Risk Protection would capture the order 

entry and execution rate for those 

Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders 

entered in the Opening Process, which 

is described in Options 3, Section 8, and 

would assist Members in managing their 

pre-open risk by allowing Members to 

adhere to their firm thresholds. The 

Exchange is providing both order and 

quote risk protections in the Opening 

Process to allow Members to manage 

their risk. The Exchange notes that other 

risk protections within Options 3, 

Section 15 do not apply to either an 

Opening Sweep or an Opening Only 

Order because the risk protection either 

relies on the BBO, which is available 

after the Opening Process or the risk 

protection is optional. 

Options 3, Sections 11 and 13 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A) related to 

the Facilitation Mechanism is consistent 

with the Act and the protection of 

investors and the general public because 

the System ensures that the facilitation 

order is at a price that is not inferior to 

the Exchange best bid (offer) or if there 

is a Priority Customer on the same side 

Exchange best bid (offer) at the same 

price as the facilitation price, otherwise 

the order would be cancelled. This price 

check ensures that the auction order 

may not trade at or through the Priority 

Customer order on the same side. This 

language represents the current System 

functionality. Similar changes are 

proposed to Options 3, Section 

11(d)(3)(A) related to the Solicited 

Order Mechanism with respect to the 

contra-side. These amendments 

represent current System functionality 

and similarly ensure that the auction 

order may not trade at or through the 

Priority Customer order on the contra 

side. This is consistent with the 

treatment of Priority Customer in 

GEMX’s order book allocation, 

described in Options 3, Section 10, 

wherein Priority Customer interest is 

executed within PIM ahead of any other 

interest of Members.12

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

new Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(iv) 

related to the Facilitation Mechanism 

and Options 3, Section 13(d)(7) related 

to the Price Improvement Mechanism 

for Crossing Transactions is consistent 

with the Act and the protection of 

investors and the general public by 

permitting rounding to occur as 

specified in the Exchange’s rules. The 

proposal states how rounding interacts 

with the allocation percentages. The 

Exchange proposes to state that it will 

not permit an allocation percentage 

greater than the stated amounts in the 

auction rules, unless rounding is 

necessary. This proposed rule text 

represents the current System 

functionality. 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Supplementary Material .04 to Options 

3, Section 11 to replace the word 

‘‘quotes’’ with ‘‘Responses’’ in the Split 

Price description is consistent with the 

Act and the protection of investors and 

the general public because orders and 

Responses in the market that receive the 

benefit of the facilitation price may 

receive executions at Split Prices. This 

change to the rule text is intended to 

utilize the defined term Response which 

pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(b)(3) 

may be priced at the price of the order 

to be facilitated or at a better price and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 66117 

13See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D). 14See BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1). 

will only be considered up to the size 

of the order to be facilitated. 

The Exchange’s proposal to add a new 

Supplementary Material .08 to Options 

3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary 

Material .09 to Options 3, Section 13 to 

provide that if an allocation would 

result in less than one contract, then one 

contract would be allocated is 

consistent with the Act and the 

protection of investors and the general 

public because one contract is the 

minimum unit in which an option may 

trade on GEMX. This language 

represents the current System 

functionality. Phlx has similar 

language.13

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) through (3) 

to harmonize the language within the 

PIM entry checks with language within 

ISE’s PIM, MRX’s PIM, Phlx’s PIXL and 

BX’s PRISM, without changing the 

substantive operations of these price 

improvement auctions, is consistent 

with the Act and the protection of 

investors and the general public because 

by utilizing similar language, Members 

will be able to compare GEMX PIM 

entry checks with similar mechanisms 

on Nasdaq affiliated markets. 

Amending Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) 

to add new subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

to distinguish opposite and same side 

checks and add within the same side 

check a reference to the NBBO check, is 

consistent with the Act and the 

protection of investors and the general 

public because the NBBO check is 

always relevant in the same side check 

to avoid a trade-through. The Exchange 

believes that the addition of the NBBO 

check will add clarity to the rule text 

because the NBBO check is always 

relevant in the same side check to avoid 

a trade-through. The remainder of the 

changes are non-substantive. 

The Exchange’s proposal to bifurcate 

the entry check for Agency Orders of 50 

options contracts or more for the 

account of a Priority Customer from the 

entry checks for the account of a broker 

dealer or any other person or entity that 

is not a Priority Customer into two new 

paragraphs, a (b)(2) and a (b)(3), is 

consistent with the Act and the 

protection of investors and the general 

public because retaining the same rule 

text format across its Nasdaq affiliated 

markets will allow for an easier 

comparison. 

The Exchange’s proposal to add ‘‘for 

the account of a Priority Customer’’ to 

new subparagraph (b)(2) to explicitly 

address the opposite side of the market 

and also note the NBBO entry check on 

the same side of the market is consistent 

with the Act and the protection of 

investors and the general public because 

the new format will provide the 

parameters for each check. Further, the 

NBBO check is always relevant in the 

same side check to avoid a tradethrough. The remainder of the changes 

are non-substantive. Mirroring the same 

language within Options 3, Section 

13(b)(2)(B), except to note that it is for 

the account of a broker dealer or any 

other person or entity that is not a 

Priority Customer will allow Members 

to compare GEMX’s PIM entry checks 

with similar mechanisms on Nasdaq 

affiliated markets. 

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. 

Options 3, Section 7 

Opening Only 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 7(t), Opening Sweeps 

and Supplementary Material .02(e) to 

Options 3, Section 7 related to OPG 

Orders does not impose an intra-market 

burden on competition because the 

Market Wide Risk Protection is available 

to all Members in the Opening Process. 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Opening Sweeps and OPG Orders does 

not impose an inter-market burden on 

competition because other options 

exchanges may similarly offer such risk 

protections on their opening order 

types. 

Options 3, Sections 11 and 13 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A) related to 

the Facilitation Mechanism and Options 

3, Section 11(d)(3)(A) related to the 

Solicited Order Mechanism to state that 

that the order must execute at a price 

that is better than the same side BBO if 

these is a Priority Customer on the same 

side does not impose an intra-market 

burden on competition because all 

auction orders in these aforementioned 

auction mechanisms would be handled 

in a uniform manner by the System such 

that those orders would not be 

permitted to trade at or through the 

Priority Customer order on the same 

side. The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(A) related to 

the Facilitation Mechanism and Options 

3, Section 11(d)(3)(A) related to the 

Solicited Order Mechanism to state that 

that the order must execute at a price 

that is better than the same side BBO if 

these is a Priority Customer on the same 

side does not impose an inter-market 

burden on competition because other 

options markets similarly have customer 

overlay priorities. 

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

new Options 3, Section 11(b)(4)(iv) 

related to the Facilitation Mechanism 

and Options 3, Section 13(d)(7) related 

to the Price Improvement Mechanism 

for Crossing Transactions does not 

impose an intra-market burden on 

competition because the Exchange’s 

rules regarding rounding are applied in 

a uniform manner to all Members 

submitting an order into an auction 

mechanism. The Exchange’s proposal to 

amend new Options 3, Section 

11(b)(4)(iv) related to the Facilitation 

Mechanism and Options 3, Section 

13(d)(7) related to the Price 

Improvement Mechanism for Crossing 

Transactions does not impose an intermarket burden on competition because 

other options exchanges similarly round 

in excess of allocation percentages such 

as BX.14

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Supplementary Material .04 to Options 

3, Section 11 to replace the word 

‘‘quotes’’ with ‘‘Responses’’ in the Split 

Price description does not impose an 

intra-market burden on competition 

because orders and responses in the 

market that receive the benefit of the 

facilitation price may receive executions 

at Split Prices. This clarification to the 

rule text is intended to correct the 

current language. The Exchange’s 

proposal to amend Supplementary 

Material .04 to Options 3, Section 11 to 

replace the word ‘‘quotes’’ with 

‘‘Responses’’ in the Split Price 

description does not impose an intermarket burden on competition because 

this rule text change is specific to 

GEMX’s rule language. 

The Exchange’s proposal to add a new 

Supplementary Material .08 to Options 

3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary 

Material .09 to Options 3, Section 13 to 

provide that, today, if an allocation 

would result in less than one contract, 

then one contract will be allocated does 

not impose an intra-market burden on 

competition because the System would 

uniformly allocate contracts with a 

minimum unit of one contract. The 

Exchange’s proposal to add a new 

Supplementary Material .08 to Options 

3, Section 11 and a new Supplementary 

Material .09 to Options 3, Section 13 to 

provide that, today, if an allocation 

would result in less than one contract, 

then one contract will be allocated does 

not impose an inter-market burden on 

competition because other options 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
66118 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Notices 

15See Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(1)(D). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

17 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give 

the Commission written notice of its intent to file 

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. 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

markets similarly specify a minimum 

unit of rounding such as Phlx.15

The Exchange’s proposal to amend 

Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) through (3) 

to harmonize the language within the 

PIM entry checks within ISE’s PIM, 

MRX’s PIM, Phlx’s PIXL and BX’s 

PRISM, without changing the 

substantive operations of these price 

improvement auctions, distinguishing 

opposite and same side checks, and 

adding the NBBO check reference 

within the same side check do not 

impose an intra-market undue burden 

on competition because harmonizing 

the language will enable Members to 

compare GEMX’s PIM entry checks with 

similar mechanisms on Nasdaq 

affiliated markets. Further, the NBBO 

check is always relevant in the same 

side check to avoid a trade-through. The 

Exchange’s proposal to amend Options 

3, Section 13(b)(1) through (3) to 

harmonize the language within the PIM 

entry checks within ISE’s PIM, MRX’s 

PIM, Phlx’s PIXL and BX’s PRISM, 

without changing the substantive 

operations of these price improvement 

auctions, distinguishing opposite and 

same side checks, and adding the NBBO 

check reference within the same side 

check do not impose an inter-market 

undue burden on competition because 

other options markets have their own 

price improvement auctions and are free 

to denote their entry checks in a similar 

fashion and have both same and 

opposite side entry checks which may 

differ from GEMX’s rule. 

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 

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 16 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.17

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

GEMX–2023–11 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–GEMX–2023–11. 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 

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–GEMX–2023–11 and should be 

submitted on or before October 17, 

2023. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20803 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #18187 and #18188; 

GEORGIA Disaster Number GA–00162] 

Administrative Declaration of a 

Disaster for the State of Georgia 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an 

Administrative declaration of a disaster 

for the State of Georgia dated 09/20/ 

2023. 

Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding. 

Incident Period: 08/29/2023. 

DATES: Issued on 09/20/2023. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 11/20/2023. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 06/20/2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 

Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 

SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, 

(202) 205–6734. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

Administrator’s disaster declaration, 

applications for disaster loans may be 

filed at the address listed above or other 

locally announced locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Gordon. 

Contiguous Counties: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1