Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35291 

4The requested relief would apply to direct sales 

of shares in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of 

Funds and redemptions of those shares. Applicants, 

moreover, are not seeking relief from section 17(a) 

for, and the requested relief will not apply to, 

transactions where a Fund could be deemed an 

Affiliated Person, or a Second-Tier Affiliate, of a 

Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an entity 

controlling, controlled by or under common control 

with an Adviser provides investment advisory 

services to that Fund of Funds. 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

such as supply and demand. Therefore, 

applicants assert that secondary market 

transactions in shares will not lead to 

discrimination or preferential treatment 

among purchasers. Finally, applicants 

represent that share market prices will 

be disciplined by arbitrage 

opportunities, which should prevent 

shares from trading at a material 

discount or premium from NAV. 

6. With respect to Funds that effect 

creations and redemptions of Creation 

Units in kind and that are based on 

certain Underlying Indexes that include 

foreign securities, applicants request 

relief from the requirement imposed by 

section 22(e) in order to allow such 

Funds to pay redemption proceeds 

within fifteen calendar days following 

the tender of Creation Units for 

redemption. Applicants assert that the 

requested relief would not be 

inconsistent with the spirit and intent of 

section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, 

undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the 

actual payment of redemption proceeds. 

7. Applicants request an exemption to 

permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund 

shares beyond the limits of section 

12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, 

and any principal underwriter for the 

Funds, and/or any broker or dealer 

registered under the Exchange Act, to 

sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond 

the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the 

Act. The application’s terms and 

conditions are designed to, among other 

things, help prevent any potential (i) 

undue influence over a Fund through 

control or voting power, or in 

connection with certain services, 

transactions, and underwritings, (ii) 

excessive layering of fees, and (iii) 

overly complex fund structures, which 

are the concerns underlying the limits 

in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act. 

8. Applicants request an exemption 

from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the 

Act to permit persons that are Affiliated 

Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the 

Funds, solely by virtue of certain 

ownership interests, to effectuate 

purchases and redemptions in-kind. The 

deposit procedures for in-kind 

purchases of Creation Units and the 

redemption procedures for in-kind 

redemptions of Creation Units will be 

the same for all purchases and 

redemptions, and Deposit Instruments 

and Redemption Instruments will be 

valued in the same manner as those 

investment positions currently held by 

the Funds. Applicants also seek relief 

from the prohibitions on affiliated 

transactions in section 17(a) to permit a 

Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its 

shares from a Fund of Funds, and to 

engage in the accompanying in-kind 

transactions with the Fund of Funds.4

The purchase of Creation Units by a 

Fund of Funds directly from a Fund will 

be accomplished in accordance with the 

policies of the Fund of Funds and will 

be based on the NAVs of the Funds. 

9. Applicants also request relief to 

permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares 

of another registered investment 

company managed by the Adviser 

having substantially the same 

investment objectives as the Feeder 

Fund (‘‘Master Fund’’) beyond the 

limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and 

permit the Master Fund, and any 

principal underwriter for the Master 

Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund 

to the Feeder Fund beyond the 

limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B). 

10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the 

Commission to exempt any persons or 

transactions from any provision of the 

Act if such exemption is necessary or 

appropriate in the public interest and 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the purposes fairly 

intended by the policy and provisions of 

the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act 

provides that the Commission may 

exempt any person, security, or 

transaction, or any class or classes of 

persons, securities, or transactions, from 

any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the 

exemption is consistent with the public 

interest and the protection of investors. 

Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Commission to grant an order 

permitting a transaction otherwise 

prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds 

that (a) the terms of the proposed 

transaction are fair and reasonable and 

do not involve overreaching on the part 

of any person concerned; (b) the 

proposed transaction is consistent with 

the policies of each registered 

investment company involved; and (c) 

the proposed transaction is consistent 

with the general purposes of the Act. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15861 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83673; File No. SR– 

CboeBZX–2018–051] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of a 

Proposed Rule Change to Exchange 

Rule 11.13, Order Execution and 

Routing, To Amend the Operation of 

the Super Aggressive Order 

Instruction 

July 19, 2018. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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

notice is hereby given that on July 11, 

2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BZX’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Exchange has 

designated this proposal as a ‘‘noncontroversial’’ proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,4

which renders it effective upon filing 

with the Commission. 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 filed a proposal to 

amend the operation of the Super 

Aggressive order instruction under 

paragraph (b)(4)(C) of Exchange Rule 

11.13. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available at the Exchange’s website at 

www.markets.cboe.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 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35292 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

5The term ‘‘System’’ is defined as ‘‘the electronic 

communications and trading facility designated by 

the Board through which securities orders of Users 

are consolidated for ranking, execution and, when 

applicable, routing away.’’ See Exchange Rule 

1.5(aa). 

6See Exchange Rule 1.5(e). 

7A BZX Post Only Order will remove contra-side 

liquidity from the BZX Book if the order is an order 

to buy or sell a security priced below $1.00 or if 

the value of such execution when removing 

liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such 

execution if the order instead posted to the BZX 

Book and subsequently provided liquidity, 

including the applicable fees charged or rebates 

provided. See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6). A Partial 

Post Only at Limit Order will remove liquidity from 

the BZX Book up to the full size of the order if, at 

the time of receipt, it can be executed at prices 

better than its limit price. See Exchange Rule 

11.9(c)(7). 8See id. 9See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(12). 

the most significant parts 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 the 

description of the Super Aggressive ReRoute instruction (‘‘Super Aggressive 

instruction’’) under paragraph (b)(4)(C) 

of Exchange Rule 11.13, Order 

Execution and Routing to: (i) Specify 

that an incoming BZX Post Only Order 

or Partial Post Only at Limit Order that 

locks a resting order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction must be 

designated as eligible for display on the 

Exchange (a ‘‘displayed order’’) for the 

order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction to engage in a liquidity swap 

and execute against that incoming order; 

and (ii) modify language from the 

description of the Super Aggressive 

instruction that states if an order that 

does not contain a Super Aggressive 

instruction maintains higher priority 

than one or more Super Aggressive 

eligible orders, the Super Aggressive 

eligible order(s) with lower priority will 

not be converted and an incoming BZX 

Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at 

Limit Order will be posted or cancelled 

in accordance with Exchange Rule 

11.9(c)(6) or 11.9(c)(7). 

Super Aggressive is an optional order 

instruction that directs the System 5 to 

route an order when an away Trading 

Center locks or crosses the limit price of 

the order resting on the BZX Book.6

When an order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction is locked by an incoming 

BZX Post Only Order or Partial Post 

Only at Limit Order (hereafter 

collectively referred to as a ‘‘Post Only 

Order’’) that does not remove liquidity 

pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(6) or 11.9(c)(7), 

respectively,7 the order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction is converted to 

an executable order and will remove 

liquidity against such incoming order. 

First, the Exchange proposes to 

modify the behavior of the Super 

Aggressive instruction to require that 

the incoming Post Only Order that locks 

a resting order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction must be designated as a 

displayed order for an execution to 

occur. The Super Aggressive instruction 

is generally utilized for best execution 

purposes because it enables the order to 

immediately attempt to access displayed 

liquidity on another Trading Center that 

is either priced equal to or better than 

the order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction’s limit price. The Super 

Aggressive instruction also enables the 

order to execute against an equally 

priced incoming Post Only Order that 

would otherwise not execute by being 

willing to act as the liquidity remover in 

such a scenario. Today, the incoming 

Post Only Order may either be a 

displayed order or a non-displayed 

order for it to engage in a liquidity swap 

with an order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction resting on the BZX Book. 

Consistent with the Super Aggressive 

instruction to access liquidity displayed 

on other Trading Centers, the Exchange 

proposes to amend the Super Aggressive 

instruction such that an order with such 

instruction will execute against an 

equally priced incoming Post Only 

Order only when such order is to be 

displayed on the BZX Book. The order 

with a Super Aggressive instruction 

would continue to act as a liquidity 

remover in such a scenario. Should such 

an equally priced incoming Post Only 

Order not be designated as a displayed 

order, the resting order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction would remain on 

the BZX Book and await an execution 

where it may act as a liquidity provider. 

The incoming Post Only Order that is 

also designated as a non-displayed order 

would be posted to the BZX Book at its 

limit price, creating an internally locked 

non-displayed book. As is the case 

today, an execution would continue to 

occur where an incoming Post Only 

Order is priced more aggressively than 

the order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction resting on the BZX Book, 

regardless of whether the incoming Post 

Only Order was designated as a 

displayed order or a non-displayed 

order.8

The Exchange notes that Users 

seeking to act as a liquidity remover 

once resting on the BZX Book in all 

cases (i.e., seeking to execute against 

incoming Post Only orders regardless of 

the display instruction) may attach the 

Non-Displayed Swap (‘‘NDS’’) 

instruction to their order.9 The NDS 

instruction is similar to the Super 

Aggressive instruction, in that it also is 

an optional order instruction that a User 

may include on an order that directs the 

Exchange to have such order, when 

resting on the BZX Book, execute 

against an incoming Post Only Order 

rather than have it be locked by the 

incoming order. Today, because orders 

with either instruction (i.e., Super 

Aggressive and NDS) will execute 

against incoming Post Only Orders 

regardless of whether the order is to be 

displayed, the instructions are currently 

identical with two exceptions. First, an 

order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction will not convert into a 

liquidity removing order and execute 

against a Post Only Order if there is an 

order on the order book with priority 

over such order that does not also 

contain a Super Aggressive instruction. 

As further described below, the 

Exchange is proposing to modify this 

feature of the Super Aggressive 

instruction. The second current 

distinction between the two 

instructions, which would remain, is 

that an order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction can be displayed on the 

Exchange whereas an order with the 

NDS instruction must be non-displayed. 

As amended, the additional distinction 

between the two instructions would be 

whether an order would become a 

liquidity removing order against any 

Post Only Order that would lock it (i.e., 

NDS) or only when the Post Only Order 

that would lock it also is a displayed 

order (i.e., Super Aggressive). 

The below examples illustrate the 

proposed behavior. Assume the 

National Best Bid and Offer (‘‘NBBO’’) 

is $10.00 by $10.10. An order to buy is 

displayed on the BZX Book at $10.00 

with a Super Aggressive instruction. 

There are no other orders resting on the 

BZX Book. An order to sell at $10.00 

with a Post Only that is designated as 

a displayed order is entered. The 

incoming order to sell would execute 

against the resting order to buy at 

$10.00, the locking price, because the 

incoming order was designated as a 

displayed order. The order to buy would 

act as the liquidity remover and the 

order to sell would act as the liquidity 

adder. However, no execution would 

occur if the incoming order to sell was 

designated as a non-displayed order. 

Instead, the incoming order to sell 

would be posted non-displayed to the 

BZX Book at $10.00, its limit price, 

causing the BZX Book to be internally 

locked. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35293 

10See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(12). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83537 (June 

28, 2018), (SR–CboeBZX–2018–042) (including an 

example where an order cedes execution priority to 

an order with an NDS instruction). 

11Such order would be posted to the BZX Book 

in accordance with the Exchange’s re-pricing 

instructions to comply with Rule 610(d) of 

Regulation NMS. See Exchange Rules 11.9(g)(1) and 

(g)(2). See also 242 CFR 242.610(d). 

12This behavior is consistent with the operation 

of the Exchange’s NDS instruction. See supra note 

10. 

13The execution occurs here because the value of 

the execution against the buy order when removing 

liquidity exceeds the value of such execution if the 

order instead posted to the BZX Book and 

subsequently provided liquidity, including the 

applicable fees charged or rebates provided. See 

supra note 7. 

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

16See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(12). 

Second, the Exchange proposes to 

enable a Post Only Order that is 

designated as a displayed order to 

execute against an equally priced nondisplayed order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction where a non-displayed order 

without a Super Aggressive instruction 

maintains time priority over the Super 

Aggressive eligible order at that price. In 

such case, the non-displayed, non-Super 

Aggressive order seeks to remain a 

liquidity provider and would cede time 

priority to the order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction, which is willing 

to act as a liquidity remover to facilitate 

the execution. The Exchange proposes 

to effect this change by modifying 

language in the description of the Super 

Aggressive instruction to state that if an 

order displayed on the BZX Book does 

not contain a Super Aggressive 

instruction and maintains higher 

priority than one or more Super 

Aggressive eligible orders, the Super 

Aggressive eligible order(s) with lower 

priority will not be converted and the 

incoming Post Only Order will be 

posted or cancelled in accordance with 

Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule 

11.9(c)(7). Thus, an order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction, whether 

displayed on the Exchange or nondisplayed, will never execute ahead of 

a displayed order that maintains time 

priority. 

The Super Aggressive instruction is 

designed to facilitate executions that 

would otherwise not occur due to Post 

Only Order requirement to not remove 

liquidity. Users entering orders with the 

Super Aggressive instruction tend to be 

fee agnostic because an order with a 

Super Aggressive instruction is willing 

to route to an away Trading Center 

displaying an equally or better priced 

order (i.e., pay a fee at such Trading 

Center). Meanwhile, an order without 

the Super Aggressive instruction elects 

to remain on the BZX Book as the 

liquidity provider until it may execute 

against an incoming order that would 

act as the liquidity remover. Therefore, 

enabling the Super Aggressive order to 

execute against an incoming order, 

regardless of whether a non-displayed 

order without a Super Aggressive 

instruction maintains priority, is 

consistent with the User’s intent for 

both orders—one choses to remain the 

liquidity provider and forgo the 

execution while the other is willing to 

execute irrespective of whether it is the 

liquidity provider or remover. The 

Exchange notes that similar behavior 

occurs for orders utilizing the NDS 

instruction,10 which also seeks to 

engage in a liquidity swap against 

incoming Post Only Orders. The 

Exchange, however, has proposed to 

retain the existing limitation with 

respect to orders displayed on the BZX 

Book. 

The following example illustrates the 

operation of an order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction under the 

proposed rule change. Assume the 

NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04. There is a 

non-displayed Limit Order to buy 

resting on the BZX Book at $10.03 

(‘‘Order A’’). A second non-displayed 

Limit Order to buy at $10.03 is then 

entered with a Super Aggressive 

instruction and has time priority behind 

the first Limit Order (‘‘Order B’’). A Post 

Only Order to sell priced at $10.03 is 

entered. Under current behavior, the 

incoming sell Post Only Order would 

not execute against Order A and would 

post to the BZX Book 11 because the 

value of such execution against the 

resting buy order when removing 

liquidity does not equal or exceed the 

value of such execution if the order 

instead posted to the BZX Book and 

subsequently provided liquidity, 

including the applicable fees charged or 

rebates provided. Further, the incoming 

sell Post Only Order could not execute 

against Order B because Order A is on 

the BZX Book and maintains time 

priority over Order B. Under the 

proposed change, the incoming sell 

order, if it was designated as a displayed 

order, would execute against Order B 

and Order B would become the remover 

of liquidity while the incoming sell Post 

Only Order would become the liquidity 

provider. In such case, Order A cedes 

priority to Order B because Order A did 

not also include a Super Aggressive 

instruction 12 and thus the User that 

submitted the order did not indicate the 

preference to be treated as the remover 

of liquidity in favor of an execution; 

instead, by not using Super Aggressive, 

a User indicates the preference to 

remain posted on the BZX Book as a 

liquidity provider. However, if the 

incoming sell order was priced at 

$10.02, it would receive sufficient price 

improvement to execute upon entry 

against all resting buy Limit Orders in 

time priority at $10.03.13 Also, if Order 

A was displayed on the BZX Book, no 

execution would occur, as the proposed 

change would only apply to nondisplayed liquidity. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act 14 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 15

in particular, in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

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. 

The proposed changes to the Super 

Aggressive order instruction are 

designed to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in 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. The Super 

Aggressive instruction is an optional 

feature that is intended to reflect the 

order management practices of various 

market participants. The proposal to 

limit the execution of an order with a 

Super Aggressive instruction to execute 

against incoming Post Only Orders that 

also are designated as displayed orders 

promotes just and equitable principles 

of trade because it enables Users to elect 

an order instruction consistent with 

their intent to execute only against 

displayed orders, in part, for best 

execution purposes. The amended 

Super Aggressive instruction would 

ensure executions at the best available 

price displayed on another Trading 

Center or against an incoming order that 

would have been displayed on the BZX 

Book. Users seeking to act as a liquidity 

remover once resting on the BZX Book 

and execute against an incoming Post 

Only Order that is also designated as a 

non-displayed order may attach the 

NDS instruction to their order.16

The proposed change to the Super 

Aggressive instruction also removes 

impediments to and perfects the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system because it 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
35294 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 

17See supra note 10. 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) 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. 

20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

21For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 

operative delay, the Commission has also 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

is designed to facilitate executions that 

would otherwise not occur due to the 

Post Only Order requirement to not 

remove liquidity. The proposal enables 

non-displayed Super Aggressive orders 

to execute against an incoming order, 

regardless of whether another nondisplayed order without a Super 

Aggressive instruction maintains 

priority consistent with the User’s intent 

for both orders—one chooses to remain 

the liquidity provider and forgo the 

execution while the other is willing to 

execute irrespective of whether it is the 

liquidity provider or remover. The nonSuper Aggressive order seeks to remain 

a liquidity provider and cede its time 

priority to the order with a Super 

Aggressive instruction, which is willing 

to act as a liquidity remover to facilitate 

the execution. It also enables an order 

without the Super Aggressive 

instruction to remain on the BZX Book 

as a liquidity provider, consistent with 

the expected operation of their resting 

order. The Exchange notes that similar 

behavior occurs for orders utilizing the 

NDS 17 instruction, which also seeks to 

engage in a liquidity swap against 

incoming Post Only Orders. Finally, by 

limiting the proposed change to nondisplayed orders, the proposal remains 

consistent with NDS and also retains 

existing functionality with respect to the 

handling of displayed orders. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Exchange believes the proposal removes 

impediments to and perfects the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, and, in 

general, protects investors and the 

public interest. 

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, as amended. 

On the contrary, the proposed changes 

to the Super Aggressive order 

instruction are intended to improve the 

usefulness of the instruction and to 

align its operation with the intention of 

the User, resulting in enhanced 

competition through increased usage 

and execution quality on the Exchange. 

Thus, to the extent the change is 

intended to improve functionality on 

the Exchange to encourage Users to 

direct their orders to the Exchange, the 

change is competitive, but the Exchange 

does not believe the proposed change 

will result in any burden on intermarket 

competition as it is a minor change to 

available functionality. The proposed 

changes to the Super Aggressive order 

instruction also promote intramarket 

competition because they will facilitate 

the execution of orders that would 

otherwise remain unexecuted consistent 

with the intent of the User entering the 

order, thereby increasing the efficient 

functioning of the Exchange. Further, 

the Super Aggressive order instruction 

will remain available to all Users in the 

same way it is today. Thus, Users can 

continue to choose between various 

optional order instructions, including 

Super Aggressive, NDS, and others, 

depending on the order handling they 

prefer the Exchange to utilize. 

Therefore, the Exchange does not 

believe the proposed rule change will 

result in any burden on intramarket 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange has neither solicited 

nor received written comments on the 

proposed rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: (i) Significantly affect 

the protection of investors or the public 

interest; (ii) impose any significant 

burden on competition; and (iii) become 

operative for 30 days from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 18 and 

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.19

A proposed rule change filed under 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not 

become operative for 30 days after the 

date of the filing. However, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) 20 permits the Commission to 

designate a shorter time if such action 

is consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest. In its 

filing, BZX requested that the 

Commission waive the 30-day operative 

delay so that the Exchange can 

implement the proposed rule change 

promptly after filing. The Exchange 

stated that the proposal to allow an 

order with a Super Aggressive 

instruction to execute against an 

incoming Post Only order only if the 

Post Only order is displayable is 

consistent with the use of the Super 

Aggressive instruction to access 

liquidity displayed on other Trading 

Centers. Further, according to the 

Exchange, users seeking to execute 

against incoming non-displayable Post 

Only orders will continue to be able to 

attach the NDS order instruction, as 

well as other order instructions that may 

permit such executions. In addition, the 

Exchange stated that the proposed 

priority change where non-displayed 

orders without a Super Aggressive 

instruction would cede priority to nondisplayed orders with a Super 

Aggressive instruction is similar to, and 

consistent with, the Exchange’s priority 

ceding functionality for orders with an 

NDS instruction and would facilitate 

executions that would otherwise not 

occur due to an incoming Post Only 

order’s requirement not to remove 

liquidity. The Commission believes that 

waiver of the 30-day operative delay is 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest, as the 

proposed rule change relates to optional 

functionality that is consistent with 

existing functionality and, if selected by 

Exchange users, may enable them to 

better manage their orders and may 

increase order interaction on the 

Exchange. Accordingly, the Commission 

hereby waives the 30-day operative 

delay and designates the proposed rule 

change operative upon filing.21

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: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 35295 

22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) and (59). 

1Post-effective amendments are filed with the 

Commission on the UIT’s Form S–6. Hence, 

respondents only file Form N–8B–2 for their initial 

registration statement and not for post-effective 

amendments. 

2 In 2015 the Commission received 3 filings, 

while in 2016 and 2017, the Commission received 

0 filings, respectively. The cumulative 3-year 

average is, therefore, 1 filing per year. 

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– 

CboeBZX–2018–051 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–CboeBZX–2018–051. 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–CboeBZX–2018–051, and 

should be submitted on or before 

August 15, 2018. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.22

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15848 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Extension: 

Form N–8B–2, SEC File No. 270–186, OMB 

Control No. 3235–0186 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the collection of information 

summarized below. The Commission 

plans to submit this existing collection 

of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for extension 

and approval. 

Form N–8B–2 (17 CFR 274.12) is the 

form used by unit investment trusts 

(‘‘UITs’’) other than separate accounts 

that are currently issuing securities, 

including UITs that are issuers of 

periodic payment plan certificates and 

UITs of which a management 

investment company is the sponsor or 

depositor, to comply with the filing and 

disclosure requirements imposed by 

section 8(b) of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–8(b)). Form 

N–8B–2 requires disclosure about the 

organization of a UIT, its securities, the 

personnel and affiliated persons of the 

depositor, the distribution and 

redemption of securities, the trustee or 

custodian, and financial statements. The 

Commission uses the information 

provided in the collection of 

information to determine compliance 

with section 8(b) of the Investment 

Company Act. 

Each registrant subject to the Form N– 

8B–2 filing requirement files Form N– 

8B–2 for its initial filing and does not 

file post-effective amendments on Form 

N–8B–2.1 The Commission staff 

estimates that approximately one 

respondent files one Form N–8B–2 

filing annually with the Commission.2

Staff estimates that the burden for 

compliance with Form N–8B–2 is 

approximately 10 hours per filing. The 

total hour burden for the Form N–8B– 

2 filing requirement therefore is 10 

hours in the aggregate (1 respondent × 

one filing per respondent × 10 hours per 

filing). 

Estimates of the burden hours are 

made solely for the purposes of the PRA 

and are not derived from a 

comprehensive or even a representative 

survey or study of the costs of SEC rules 

and forms. The information provided on 

Form N–8B–2 is mandatory. The 

information provided on Form N–8B–2 

will not be kept confidential. 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. 

Written comments are invited on: (a) 

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; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. Consideration will be given 

to comments and suggestions submitted 

in writing within 60 days of this 

publication. 

Please direct your written comments 

to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 

Information Officer, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, c/o Candace 

Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, 

DC 20549; or send an email to: PRA_

Mailbox@sec.gov. 

Dated: July 19, 2018. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15857 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Extension: 

Rule 24b–1; SEC File No. 270–205; OMB 

Control No. 3235–0194 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES