[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54146-54147]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78525; File No. SR-NSCC-2016-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Add a Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee

August 9, 2016.
    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 29, 2016, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
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 clearing agency. NSCC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The proposed rule change was effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Addendum
A (Fee Structure) of the Rules and Procedures (``Rules'') of NSCC in
order to add a new fee that will be charged to Members and certain
Limited Members \5\ in connection with the maintenance of the Clearing
Fund, as described in greater detail below.\6\ Members and applicable
Limited Members are collectively referred to herein as ``members.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed new fee will be imposed on Limited Members that
are required to make deposits to the Clearing Fund. Currently, those
Limited Members are Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members and Fund
Members organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland.
    \6\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change will add a fee that will be charged to
members in connection with the maintenance of the Clearing Fund.
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, NSCC proposes to introduce a
new fee, to be known as the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee, which will
be charged to members in arrears on a monthly basis.
    The proposed rule change will (i) diversify NSCC's revenue sources
and mitigate NSCC's dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes
and (ii) add a stable revenue source that will contribute to NSCC's
operating margin by offsetting increasing costs and expenses, as
further described below.
Diversify Revenue Sources
    NSCC's current revenues are highly variable due to the nature of
the clearing services, which are primarily driven by trading volumes,
but, as a utility, NSCC's expenses are largely fixed. The combination
of fixed costs and variable revenues represents a financial risk for
NSCC. To mitigate such financial risk, NSCC is seeking to diversify its
variable revenue base with the proposed new fee, which will introduce a
revenue source that is not dependent on trading volumes. The Clearing
Fund Maintenance Fee will be ratably based on the member's Clearing
Fund average cash deposit.
Offset Increasing Costs and Expenses
    NSCC seeks to achieve a target operating margin to cover operating
expenses and fund capital expenditures as well as investments in its
clearing services and risk management infrastructure; however, NSCC
faces continued increasing risk management costs as well as regulatory
and compliance-related expenses that need to be offset by revenue
growth in order to meet the target operating margin. Such increased
costs and expenses, if not offset by revenue growth, could weaken
NSCC's financial position over time. As such, NSCC is seeking to
implement the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee to add an additional
revenue source to offset increasing costs and expenses.
    Proceeds of the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee will be used
primarily to offset risk management costs, regulatory and compliance
expenses and for general operating expenses.
Calculation
    The amount of the monthly Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee for a
member will be calculated monthly, in arrears, as the product of 0.25%
and the average of the member's actual cash deposit to the Clearing
Fund as of the end of each day of the month, multiplied by the number
of days in that month and divided by 360; provided that, the investment
rate of return on investment by NSCC of cash in the Clearing Fund for
that month is equal to or greater than 0.25%. No fee will be charged to
any member for a month in which the monthly rate of return on
investment of cash in the Clearing Fund is less than 0.25%.
    Based on the 2015 average actual cash deposits to the Clearing
Fund, the expected annual revenue to be generated by the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee is approximately $16 million.
Member Impact
    The proposed rule change will impose the Clearing Fund Maintenance
Fee on all members that are required to make deposits to the Clearing
Fund.
    The Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee is a monthly fee based ratably
upon the amount of the member's daily actual cash deposited to the
Clearing Fund; it

is applicable when the monthly rate of return on investment of cash in
the Clearing Fund is equal to or greater than 0.25%.
    Because the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee per member is
proportional to the average monthly cash deposit of the member to the
Clearing Fund, members that generate higher levels of activity and make
greater use of NSCC's services will generally be subject to a higher
fee, because such members typically maintain higher Clearing Fund
deposits pursuant to the Rules.
    NSCC views the proposed implementation of the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee as a prudent way to minimize the magnitude of, and
mitigate the need for, potential future increases in other fees.
    The proposed change will take effect on August 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \7\ requires that NSCC's Rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its participants. The proposed fee is equitably
allocated among members because it is based on each member's
utilization of NSCC's services, as measured by their Clearing Fund
deposits. In addition, NSCC believes that the proposed fee is
reasonable because it will enable NSCC to better align its revenue with
the costs and expenses required for NSCC to provide services to its
members with a nominal impact on members. Therefore, NSCC believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed fee will
be equitably allocated among members based on each member's utilization
of NSCC's services. Members that have a higher level of activities and
greater use of NSCC's services will generally be subject to a higher
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee and members with lower usage will pay
less.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

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) \9\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2016-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2016-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2016-002 and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19326 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39722-39724]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14320]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78057; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 6A To
Exclude the Physical Area Within Fully Enclosed Telephone Booths
Located in 18 Broad Street From the Definition of Trading Floor

June 13, 2016.
    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 May 31, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 6A (``Trading Floor'') to
exclude an area in 18 Broad Street that has fully enclosed telephone
booths from the definition of Trading Floor. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NYSE Rule 6A
(``Trading Floor'') to exclude from the definition of ``Trading Floor''
the area within fully enclosed telephone booths located in 18 Broad
Street.
    The Exchange currently defines ``Trading Floor'' \3\ in Rule 6A to
mean the restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange
for the trading of securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room,'' the
``Blue Room'' and the ``Garage.'' \4\ Rule 6A also specifies that the
Exchange's Trading Floor does not include areas designated by the
Exchange where NYSE Amex-listed options are traded, commonly known as
the ``Extended Blue Room,'' which, for the purposes of the Exchange's
Rules, are referred to as the ``NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor.'' \5\
The Exchange proposes to add sub-paragraph numbering to Rule 6A, so
that the first paragraph of the rule would be sub-paragraph (a) and the
second paragraph would be sub-paragraph (b). As proposed, Rule 6A(a)
would define the term ``Trading Floor,'' and proposed Rule 6A(b) would
define which physical areas are excluded from the definition of
``Trading Floor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Access to the Trading Floor is restricted at each entrance
by turnstiles and only authorized visitors, members or member firm
employees are permitted to enter.
    \4\ See NYSE Rule 6A; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 59479 (Mar. 2, 2009), 74 FR 10325 (Mar. 10, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-
23) (Notice of filing adopting NYSE Rule 6A and explaining that the
proposed definition of ``Trading Floor'' will provide a more
accurate description of the physical areas of the Floor where
trading is actually conducted).
    \5\ Id. The term ``Trading Floor'' is distinct from the term
``Floor.'' The term ``Floor'' means the trading Floor of the
Exchange and the premises immediately adjacent thereto, such as the
various entrances and lobbies of the 11 Wall Street, 18 New Street,
8 Broad Street, 12 Broad Street and 18 Broad Street Buildings, and
also means the telephone facilities available in these locations.
See NYSE Rule 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to amend Rule 6A to reflect the
renaming of the physical area formerly known as the ``Garage.'' That
area has been renamed the ``Buttonwood Room'' and the Exchange proposes
to reflect this change in Rule 6A. Rule 6A also currently defines
Trading Floor to include areas commonly known as the ``Blue Room'' and
also refers to an area commonly referred to as the ``Extended Blue
Room.'' \6\ The Exchange recently closed those areas and moved all
member organizations, member organization employees and NYSE Amex
Options trading activities that were previously housed in these areas
to the Buttonwood Room. To reflect this change, the Exchange proposes
to delete references to the Blue Room and Extended Blue Room from Rule
6A and replace them with a reference to the Buttonwood Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Blue Room and Extended Blue Room are references to
trading spaces previously utilized by member firm employees and NYSE
Amex Options at 20 Broad Street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to proposed Rule 6A(b), the current rule already
excludes the NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor from the definition of
``Trading Floor.'' To reflect the change to the names of the trading
rooms and the relocation of the NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor to the
Buttonwood Room, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6A(b) to refer to
the Buttonwood Room when referring to the NYSE Amex Options Trading
Floor. Accordingly, the proposed rule would exclude from the definition
of Trading Floor the designated areas in the Buttonwood Room where NYSE
Amex-listed options are traded which, for the purposes of the
Exchange's Rules, would continue to be referred to as the ``NYSE Amex
Options Trading Floor.'' \7\ This proposed change does not make any
substantive changes and reflects only the location change for NYSE Amex
Options. This proposal would have no impact on the physical location of
NYSE Amex Options personnel as they would remain in their current
location in the Buttonwood Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As when the NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor was located in
the Extended Blue Room, in the Buttonwood Room, the Exchange has
erected physical barriers between the NYSE Amex Options Trading
Floor and any Exchange member organizations or Exchange personnel
that are also located in the Buttonwood Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to amend Rule 6A(b) to exclude an
additional area from the definition of Trading Floor. As proposed, the
Exchange proposes to exclude from the definition of Trading

Floor the area within fully enclosed telephone booths located in 18
Broad Street at the Southeast wall of the Trading Floor. The telephone
booths would be located in a vestibule area adjacent to 18 Broad Street
elevator banks that provide access to the Trading Floor and that are
separated from the equity trading areas of the Main Room by
approximately forty (40) feet and a partial physical barrier. As such,
while inside the telephone booths, there is not any visual or auditory
access to activities conducted at the trading posts or by Floor
Brokers.
    These telephone booths would be designed for use by DMMs, but could
be used by anyone on the Trading Floor. Because the telephone booths
would be excluded from the definition of Trading Floor, there would not
be any restrictions on the use of personal cell phones by DMMs while in
these telephone booths, nor would there be restrictions on which
cellular phone a Floor broker may use while in the telephone booth. For
example, currently, a DMM who is not on the Trading Floor, i.e., is
located outside the restricted-access areas of the Floor, may use a
personal cell phone to communicate with an issuer. As proposed, because
the area within the telephone booth would similarly be excluded from
the definition of Trading Floor, a DMM could use a personal cell phone
while inside the telephone booth to communicate with an issuer. A DMM's
use of a personal cell phone while within the telephone booth would be
no different than if the DMM used his or her personal cell phone to
communicate with an issuer from the DMM's office off the Exchange or
while outside the restricted-access areas of the Floor, i.e., outside
the Trading Floor.
    While in the telephone booth, the DMM would not have access to any
time and place information that he or she may have at the trading post.
The proposed location of these telephone booths would ensure the
privacy of any conversations, for a number of reasons: the closest
location of any Floor Broker operations, which also contain privacy
barriers, is approximately forty (40) feet from the proposed location
of the telephone booths; there are high arching walls with limited line
and sight vision separating the telephone booths from any trading posts
on the Trading Floor; and lastly, the telephone booths are fully
enclosed so any conversation that would occur would take place behind
closed doors. The Exchange believes that the combination of these
visual and acoustical barriers would substantially eliminate the risk
that any conversations occurring inside the telephone booth could be
overheard. In addition, it substantially eliminates the risk that an
individual having a telephone conversation while inside the telephone
booth would be able to hear or see anything at a trading post where
securities trade.
    To the extent that a DMM would use the telephone booths to
communicate off the Trading Floor, current Exchange restrictions
governing the protection of material non-public information would
continue to apply. Rule 98 (``Operation of a DMM Unit'') currently
provides that that when a Floor-based employee of a DMM unit moves to a
location off of the Trading Floor of the Exchange or if any person that
provides risk management oversight or supervision of the Floor-based
operations of the DMM unit is aware of Floor-based non-public order
information, he or she shall not (1) make such information available to
customers, (2) make such information available to individuals or
systems responsible for making trading decisions in DMM securities in
away markets or related products, or (3) use any such information in
connection with making trading decisions in DMM securities in away
markets or related products.\8\ The proposed rule change is not
intended to circumvent the restrictions prescribed in Rule 98
applicable to DMMs. Accordingly, DMMs would continue to be subject to
the restrictions against the misuse of material non-public information
prescribed in Rule 98. To that end, any communication between a DMM and
an issuer would be limited to information that is in the public domain
and not deemed material, non-public information. Except for the
requirement to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information set forth in Rule 98, Exchange rules do not have any
restrictions on DMMs communicating with issuers from locations off of
the Trading Floor. To the contrary, an important element of the DMM
role is its relationship with issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Rule 98(c)(3)(C). Rule 98, however, permits a DMM
that needs to take on a larger risk profile in a security because of
a proposed floor broker transaction to discuss the proposed
transaction, which would be deemed material non-public information,
with the DMM's risk manager located off of the Trading Floor without
violating Exchange rules or federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, DMMs would continue to be subject to supplementary
material .30 to Rule 36 (``DMM Unit Post Wires'') (``Rule 36.30''),
which permits a DMM to maintain at their posts telephone lines and
wired or wireless devices that are registered with the Exchange to
communicate with personnel at the off-Floor offices of the DMM, the
DMM's clearing firm, or with persons providing non-trading related
services to the DMM. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to Rule
36 and, therefore, the current restrictions in Rule 36 would remain
applicable and would not be affected by the proposed amendment to the
definition of Trading Floor in Rule 6A. The proposed amendment to Rule
6A would allow the Exchange to delineate an area inside the telephone
booth as being off the Trading Floor where a DMM may use a personal
cell phone, which would not be subject to Rule 36.30.
    Because the proposed telephone booths would still fall within the
broader definition of Floor under Exchange rules, the Exchange will
retain jurisdiction in this area to regulate conduct that is
inconsistent with Exchange Rules and the federal securities laws and
rules thereunder.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with, and further the objectives of, Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 \9\ (the ``Act''), in that they are designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, 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 rule change would exclude from the definition of Trading Floor
fully-enclosed telephone booths that are located on the perimeter of
the Trading Floor, approximately 40 feet away from any trading
operations. The Exchange believes that excluding these telephone booths
from the definition of Trading Floor is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the visual and acoustic lines while within
the fully-enclosed telephone booths to any trading activities are
extremely limited. The Exchange believes that the combination of these
visual and acoustical barriers would substantially eliminate the risk
that any conversations occurring inside the telephone booth could be
overheard. In addition, it substantially eliminates the risk that an
individual having a telephone conversation while inside the telephone
booth would be able to hear or see anything at a trading post where
securities trade. Accordingly, because being inside the telephone
booths would be akin to being off of the Trading Floor, the Exchange
believes

that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system to treat the areas within
the telephone booths similarly to areas located outside of the Trading
Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because it will reduce the burdens
on the ability of a DMM to communicate with an issuer. Currently, a DMM
may use a personal cell phone to communicate with an issuer outside of
the Trading Floor, but short of going to an office at a separate
physical location, there are limited areas where a DMM may have a
private conversation. The telephone booths would provide a physical
space in which a DMM could have a private conversation with an issuer
while at the same time remaining subject to existing Rule 98
requirements to protect against the misuse of material, non-public
information. The Exchange further believes that updating the references
in the Exchange rules to reflect the correct use of the Exchange
Trading Floor would eliminate any potential confusion among investors
and other market participants on the Exchange as to areas of the
Trading Floor where certain conduct is, or is not, permitted.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any issues relating to competition. Rather, the
proposed rule change would ease burdens on the ability of a DMM to have
a private conversation with an issuer by providing a physical location
that would be excluded from the definition of Trading Floor that is
private.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-31, and should be
submitted on or before July 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14320 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32199]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-50]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0006; National Flood Insurance
Program Policy Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; OMB No.
1660-0006; FEMA Form 086-0-1, Flood Insurance Application; FEMA Form
086-0-2, Flood Insurance Cancellation/Nullification Request Form; FEMA
Form 086-0-3, Flood Insurance General Change Endorsement; FEMA Form
086-0-5, Flood Insurance Preferred Risk Policy Application; FEMA Form
086-0-4, V-Zone Risk Factor Rating Form and Instructions.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Collection of Information
    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0006.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-1, Flood Insurance
Application; FEMA Form 086-0-2, Flood Insurance Cancellation/
Nullification Request Form; FEMA Form 086-0-3, Flood Insurance General
Change Endorsement; FEMA Form 086-0-5, Flood Insurance Preferred Risk
Policy Application; FEMA Form 086-0-4, V-Zone Risk Factor Rating Form
and Instructions.
    Abstract: In order to provide for the availability of policies for
flood insurance, policies are marketed through the facilities of
licensed insurance agents or brokers in the various States.
Applications from agents or brokers are forwarded to a servicing
company designated as fiscal agent by the Federal Insurance
Administration. Upon receipt and examination of the application and
required premium, the servicing company issues the appropriate Federal
flood insurance policy.
    Affected Public: Individual and Households, Business or other for-
profit, Farms, State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 123,361. Please note that the
number of respondents was misprinted in the 60-day Federal Register
Notice at 75 FR 9918, March 4, 2010. The correct number is 123,361.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: .0769 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,480.58.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated cost due to annual operation or
maintenance costs associated with this collection equal $6,387,400.
There are no annual start-up or capital costs.

    Dated: May 28, 2010.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-13604 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (7/1/2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: Shaja R. Brothers<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Valent USA

7E7268

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 7E7268 from Valent USA
Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180. by establishing a
tolerance for residues of uniconazole,
[(E)-(+)-(S)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-pent
-1-ene-3-ol] in or on the raw agricultural commodity vegetables,
fruiting, group 8 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined
that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements
set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed
before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The submitted metabolism studies are adequate for
the tolerance request. The metabolism of uniconazole-p is adequately
understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerance.

	2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical enforcement method is
available for the determination of residues of uniconazole in plants.
The analytical method has been validated by an independent laboratory.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Residue data to support the use of
uniconazole on fruiting vegetables has been submitted.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  The toxicological profile and endpoints for
uniconazole which supports this petition to establish tolerances were
previously evaluated by the US EPA.  See Federal Register, August 28,
1991 (56 FR 42622).

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the US population
subgroups to residues of uniconazole.  These analyses cover all uses
pending with the Agency.

	i. Food. The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD), of 0.05 mg/kg body
wt./day is derived from the NOEL for the rat developmental toxicity
study.  An uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to account for intra
and inter-species variation.  No additional uncertainty factor for FQPA
was applied.  The 99.9th percentile of acute dietary exposure
represented 2.4% of the aPAD for the most sensitive population subgroup
teenagers, 13-19 years old.

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.02 mg/kg body wt./day
is derived from a 1-year dog chronic study.  The chronic exposure value
used to calculate the percent of cPAD represents the individual in the
population with the highest annual average exposure.  The 100th
percentile of chronic dietary exposure was highest among children 1 to 2
and 3 to 5 years old representing 0.35% of the cPAD.

	ii. Drinking Water. The proposed use pattern for uniconazole is limited
to indoor greenhouse or container use; therefore there will be no
exposure of drinking water supplies.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Uniconazole is not registered for use on any
residential non-food sites.  Therefore, there is no non-dietary acute,
chronic, short-term or intermediate-term exposure.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity”.  EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether uniconazole has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  For the purposes of this tolerance action,
EPA has not assumed that uniconazole has a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure to residues of
uniconazole in food will represent no more than 2.4 % of the aPAD for
the most sensitive population subgroup teenagers, 13-19 years old.
Acute dietary exposure estimates were determined at the 99.9th
percentile of acute exposure.  Exposure to uniconazole through drinking
water is not expected therefore the aggregate risks to uniconazole from
food and water will not exceed the risk from food alone.

The chronic dietary exposure to residues of uniconazole in food will
represent no more than 0.35 % of the cPAD for the most sensitive
population subgroups, children 1 to 2 and 3 to 5 years old.  Chronic
dietary exposure estimates were determined at the 100th percentile of
chronic exposure.  Exposure to uniconazole through drinking water is not
expected therefore the aggregate risks to uniconazole from food and
water will not exceed the risk from food alone.

2. Infants and children. Based on the completeness and reliability of
the toxicity data, the lack of toxicological endpoints of special
concern, the lack of any indication that children are more sensitive
than adults to uniconazole, and the conservative exposure assessment,
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from acute or chronic aggregate exposure of residues of
uniconazole, including all anticipated dietary exposure, and all other
non-occupational exposures.

F. International Tolerances

	Currently there are no Codex MRLs for uniconazole.  There are no
international MRLs established on fruiting vegetables.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35370-35372]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0438]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal
Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies must publish a notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on the information collection provisions of FDA's
procedures for early food safety evaluation of new non-pesticidal
proteins produced by new plant varieties intended for food use,
including bioengineered food plants.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by August 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, we are publishing this notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of our estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information
technology.

Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by
New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use (OMB Control Number 0910-
0583)--Extension

    Since May 29, 1992, when we issued a policy statement on foods
derived from new plant varieties, we have encouraged developers of new
plant varieties, including those varieties that are developed through
biotechnology, to consult with us early in the development process to
discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise (57
FR 22984). The guidance, entitled ``Recommendations for the Early Food
Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant
Varieties Intended for Food Use,'' continues to foster early
communication by encouraging developers to submit to us their
evaluation of the food safety of their new protein. Such communication
helps to ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new
protein in a new plant variety are resolved early in development, prior
to any possible inadvertent introduction into the food supply of the
new protein.
    We believe that any food safety concern related to such material
entering the food supply would be limited to the potential that a new
protein in food from the plant variety could cause an allergic reaction
in susceptible individuals or could be a toxin. The guidance describes
the procedures for early food safety evaluation of new proteins
produced by new plant varieties, including bioengineered food plants,
and the procedures for communicating with us about the safety
evaluation.
    Interested persons may use Form FDA 3666 to transmit their
submission to the Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition. Form FDA 3666 is entitled, ``Early Food
Safety Evaluation of a New Non-Pesticidal Protein Produced by a New
Plant Variety (New Protein Consultation),'' and may be used in lieu of
a cover letter for a New Protein Consultation (NPC). Form FDA 3666
prompts a submitter to include certain elements of a NPC in a standard
format and helps the respondent organize their submission to focus on
the information needed for our safety review. The form, and elements
that would be prepared as attachments to the form, may be submitted in
electronic format via the Electronic Submission Gateway, or may be
submitted in paper format, or as electronic files on physical media
with paper signature page. The information is used by us to evaluate
the food safety of a specific new protein produced by a new plant
variety.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are developers of new plant varieties intended for food
use.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                Category                        FDA Form No.            Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First four data components.............  Form FDA 3666.............               6                1                6                4               24
Two other data components..............  Form FDA 3666.............               6                1                6               16               96
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ..........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............             120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The estimated number of annual responses and average burden per
response are based on our experience with early food safety
evaluations. Completing an early food safety evaluation for a new
protein from a new plant variety is a one-time burden (one evaluation
per new protein). Many developers of novel plants may choose not to
submit an evaluation because the field testing of a plant containing a
new protein is conducted in such a way (e.g., on such a small scale, or
in such isolated conditions, etc.) that cross-pollination with
traditional crops or commingling of plant material is not likely to be
an issue. Also, other developers may have previously communicated with
us about the food safety of a new plant protein, for example, when the
same protein was expressed in a different crop.
    For purposes of this extension request, we are re-evaluating our
estimate of the annual number of responses that we expect to receive in
the next 3 years. We received 12 NPCs during the 5-year period from
2005 through 2009, for an average of 2.4 NPCs per year. However, during
the last extension period, we saw a decrease in the number of NPCs
submitted by developers, with no NPCs submitted in 2010 through 2014.
More recently, we received 4 NPCs in the first 4 months of 2015. Based
on an approximate average from the years 2005 through 2009, and our
experience in 2015, we are revising our estimate of the annual number
of NPCs submitted by developers to be 6 or fewer.
    The early food safety evaluation for new proteins includes six main
data components. Four of these data components are easily and quickly
obtainable, having to do with the identity and source of the protein.
We estimate that completing these data components will take about 4
hours per NPC. We estimate the reporting burden for the first four data
components to be 24 hours (4 hours x 6 responses).
    Two data components ask for original data to be generated. One data
component consists of a bioinformatics analysis which can be performed
using publicly available databases. The other data component involves
``wet'' lab work to assess the new protein's stability and the
resistance of the protein to enzymatic degradation using appropriate in
vitro assays (protein digestibility study). The paperwork burden of
these two data components consists of the time it takes the company to
assemble the information on these two data components and include it in
a NPC. We estimate that completing these data components will take
about 16 hours per NPC. We estimate the reporting burden for the two
other data components to be 96 hours (16 hours x 6 responses). Thus, we
estimate the total annual hour burden for this collection of
information to be 120 hours.

    Dated: June 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-15078 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37054-37056]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7186-054]

Missisquoi, LLC; Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental
Site Review and Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 7186-054.
    c. Date Filed: September 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Missisquoi, LLC (Missisquoi).
    e. Name of Project: Sheldon Springs Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Missisquoi River in Franklin County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Webb, Licensing Manager,
Missisquoi, LLC, 670 N Commercial St., Suite 204, Manchester, NH 03101;
Phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Arash Barsari at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 27, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of

electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. All
filings must clearly identify the project name and docket number on the
first page: Sheldon Springs Hydroelectric Project (P-7186-054).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. Project Description: The existing project consists of: (1) a
286-foot-long, 35.5-foot-high concrete Ambursen-type buttress dam that
includes a 262-footlong spillway section with a 2-foot-high flashboards
and a crest elevation of 328.8 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929 (NGVD 29) at the top of the flashboards; (2) an impoundment with a
surface area of 175 acres at an elevation of 328.8 feet NGVD 29; (3) a
Main Powerhouse that contains two 10.25-megawatt (MW) vertical Kaplan
turbine-generator units (Units 1 and 2), for a total installed capacity
of 20.5 MW; (4) a South Mill Powerhouse that contains a 1-MW Francis
turbine-generator unit (Unit 3); (5) a Grinder Room Powerhouse that
contains two 1.65-MW Francis turbine-generator units (Units 4 and 5),
for a total installed capacity of 3.3 MW; (6) a 0.165-MW Kaplan
turbine-generator; (7) two transmission lines; and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The project creates an approximately 4,700-foot-long
bypassed reach of the Missisquoi River.
    Recreation facilities at the project include: (1) a canoe take-out
area that is located approximately 2,200 feet upstream of the dam on
the northern shore of the impoundment; (2) a picnic area with three
picnic tables, a seasonal restroom, an informational kiosk, and a
parking area that is located immediately downstream of the dam on the
western bank of the bypassed reach; (3) a whitewater put-in area that
is located approximately 400 feet downstream of the dam on the western
shore of the bypassed reach; (4) a picnic area with a picnic table and
a fire pit that is located approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the
dam on the southern shore of the bypassed reach; (5) a whitewater take-
out area that is located approximately 300 feet upstream of the
tailrace of the Grinder Room Powerhouse; and (6) a put-in/take-out area
adjacent to the Main Powerhouse tailrace.
    Missisquoi voluntarily operates the project in a run-of-river mode,
such that outflow from the project approximates inflow. The minimum and
maximum hydraulic capacities of the Main Powerhouse are 300 and 2,612
cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The minimum and maximum
hydraulic capacities of the South Mill Powerhouse are 112 and 260 cfs,
respectively. The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the
Grinder Room Powerhouse are 160 and 400 cfs, respectively. The 0.165-MW
turbine-generator is only capable of operating at 70 cfs. The average
annual energy production of the project from 2010 through 2020 was
69,277 megawatt-hours.
    For the purpose of protecting aquatic resources, Article 35 of the
current license requires Missisquoi to release: (1) a minimum flow of
70 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach; (2) a
minimum flow of 270 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, as measured
immediately below the tailrace of the South Mill Powerhouse; and (3) a
minimum flow of 285 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, as measured
immediately below the tailrace of the Main Powerhouse.
    For recreational purposes at the project, the current license
requires Missisquoi to: (1) provide boat access and take-out facilities
below the dam and upstream of the Main Powerhouse tailrace,
respectively; (2) provide a 24-hour telephone message service regarding
flow conditions at the dam; (3) cooperate with paddling groups to
determine the optimum flows for boats, and provide the optimum flows
for a maximum of 6 scheduled weekend days per year up to a maximum of
200,000,000 cubic feet of whitewater releases each year; and (4) allow
year-round access for paddlers regardless of whether whitewater flows
are being released.
    Missisquoi proposes to: (1) revise the project boundary to include
an approximately 400-foot-long path from the canoe take-out site to
Shawville Road; (2) revise the project boundary to include a portion of
the Heather Lane from its intersection with Shawville Road to
approximately 50 feet north of a non-project Solar Farm, as part of the
canoe portage route; (3) continue to operate the project in a run-of-
river mode; (4) continue to provide a minimum flow of 70 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less, from the dam into the bypassed reach; (5) release a
minimum flow of 285 cfs downstream of the South Mill Powerhouse
tailrace or inflow, whichever is less; (6) implement an impoundment
refill procedure, in the event of a drawdown of the impoundment,
whereby 90 percent of inflow is passed downstream and 10 percent of
inflow is used to refill the impoundment; (7) release approximately 13
cfs or inflow, whichever is less, over the spillway flashboard crest to
provide an aesthetic veil of flow over the dam, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. from May 1 to October 31; (8) develop an operation compliance
monitoring plan; (9) acquire property rights of a land associated with
the 400-foot-long path from the canoe take-out site to Shawville Road;
(10) remount the sign upstream of the boater exclusion cable, which
says ``Danger Dam Ahead--Portage Here'' to be more visible from the
river; (11) provide a two-car parking area along Heather Lane
approximately 400 feet southeast of the Main Powerhouse for the put-in/
take-out area adjacent to the Main Powerhouse tailrace; (12) improve
the existing whitewater put-in area by rearranging existing boulders to
provide a stepped approach to the river in coordination with Vermont
Division of Historic Preservation; (13) relocate the existing
whitewater take-out area to a more gently sloped take-out immediately
downstream of the existing location; (14) release whitewater flows from
the project dam in consultation with the American Whitewater and
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; (15) ramp up and ramp down
generation flows by 500 cfs per hour when providing whitewater flows;
and (16) implement erosion control measures to protect cultural
resources.
    Missisquoi proposes to decommission Units 4 and 5, and remove the
Grinder Room Powerhouse and associated facilities from the project
boundary. Missisquoi proposes to file the following information related
to the decommissioning by September 1, 2023: (1) an engineering
assessment and historic structures assessment of the structures to be
decommissioned; (2) a decommissioning plan; and (3) a revised single-
line electrical diagram.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at https://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the

document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    You may also register at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected].
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    n. Scoping Process
    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Commission staff intends to prepare either an environmental assessment
(EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (collectively referred
to as the ``NEPA document'') that describes and evaluates the probable
effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and cumulative
effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The
Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of
analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of
whether the Commission issues an EA or an EIS.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two public scoping meetings to receive
input on the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed
in the NEPA document. The daytime meeting will focus on the concerns of
resource agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Indian
tribes. The evening meeting will focus on receiving input from the
public. All interested individuals, resource agencies, Indian tribes,
and NGOs are invited to attend one or both of the meetings. The times
and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
    Place: Sheldon Elementary School, Gymnasium.
    Address: 78 Poor Farm Road, Sheldon, VT 05483.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
    Time: 6:30 p.m. (EDT).
    Place: Sheldon Elementary School, Gymnasium.
    Address: 78 Poor Farm Road, Sheldon, VT 05483.
    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at
the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental
site review of the project beginning at 1:00 p.m. on June 27, 2023. All
interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to
attend. All participants should meet at the parking area west of the
project dam, which is located at 104 Upper Shipping Yard Road, Sheldon,
Vermont 05483. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation and must wear closed-toe shoes/boots for walking in
uneven/sloped terrain around the project, and for entrance into the
powerhouses during the site visit. If you plan to attend the
environmental site review, please contact Ms. Miley Kinney of the
Missisquoi, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
[email protected] on or before June 21, 2023.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the NEPA
document; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available
information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue;
(3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that
should be analyzed in the NEPA document, including viewpoints in
opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4)
determine the resource issues to be addressed in the NEPA document; and
(5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as
those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Individuals,
NGOs, Indian tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise and
concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff
in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA
document.

    Dated: May 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11936 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3184-3188]
[FR Doc No: 2011-955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63706; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule and Circular Regarding Trading
Permit Holder Application and Other Related Fees

January 12, 2011.
    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 January 3, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') 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 CBOE. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and circular
regarding Trading Permit Holder application and other related fees
(``Trading Permit Fee Circular'').The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal/),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE 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
    CBOE Rule 2.20 grants the Exchange the authority to, from time to
time, fix the fees and charges payable by Trading Permit Holders. CBOE
is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule and Trading Permit Fee Circular
to (i) Amend the monthly fee for Market-Maker Trading Permits and
establish a sliding scale for discounted Market-Maker Trading Permit
Fees (subject to certain conditions); (ii) establish a VIX Tier
Appointment; (iii) amend the monthly fee for Floor Broker Trading
Permits and add an additional fee for Floor Brokers that conduct a
certain level of activity in VIX; (iv) amend the monthly fee for
Electronic Access Permits; (v) amend the monthly fees for bandwidth
packets; (vi) increase the Inactive Nominee Status fee; (vii) increase
the Fingerprint Processing Fee; and (viii) update the Fees Schedule to
remove outdated language.
    CBOE Rule 3.1 provides, among other things, that the Exchange may
issue different types of Trading Permits and determine the fees for
those Trading Permits. Specifically, under Rule 3.1(a)(iv), the
Exchange may issue different types of Trading Permits that allow
holders to trade one or more products authorized for trading on the
Exchange and to act in one or more trading functions authorized by CBOE
Rules. The Exchange currently has four types of Trading Permits: (i)
Market-Maker Trading Permit; (ii) Floor Broker Trading Permit; (iii)
Electronic Access Permit; and (iv) CBSX Trading Permit. Rule 3.1(a)(v)
provides, in relevant part, that Trading Permits will be subject to
such fees and charges as are established by the Exchange from time to
time pursuant to CBOE Rule 2.20 and the Exchange Fees Schedule.
    In June 2010, and immediately following demutualization, CBOE
amended its Fees Schedule to establish Trading Permit, tier appointment
and bandwidth packet fees.\3\ The Fees Schedule established a monthly
fee of $7,500 for a Market-Maker Trading Permit. At the time the
Market-Maker Trading Permits were established, CBOE determined to
discount the fees by 20% for the remainder of 2010. Thus, between July
2010 and December 2010, CBOE assessed a fee of $6,000 per month for a
Market-Maker Trading

Permit. CBOE is proposing to decrease the standard $7,500 monthly fee
for a Market-Maker Trading Permit to $6,000, which is the same as the
current level of this fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62386 (June 25,
2010), 75 FR 38566 (July 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-073) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is also proposing to establish the following sliding scale for
Market-Maker Trading Permits subject to the certain conditions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Amount per
                                                       From                          To               month per
                                                                                permit ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1 permit...................  10 permits.................        6,000
Tier 1...................................  11 permits.................  20 permits.................        4,800
Tier 2...................................  21 or more permits.........  ...........................        3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale will be available for all Market-Maker Trading
Permits, held by affiliated Trading Permit Holders and TPH
organizations, that are used for appointments in any options classes
other than SPX, VIX, OEX and XEO. Any Market-Maker Trading Permits used
for these four classes, whether in whole or in part, are excluded from
this sliding scale and will be priced at $6,000 per month. To qualify
for the rates set forth in Tiers 1 and 2 in the sliding scale, the
applicable Trading Permit Holder(s) and/or TPH organization(s) must
commit to a specific tier that includes a minimum number of eligible
Market-Maker Trading Permits for each calendar year. To participate in
the program, a Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder must notify the
Registration Services Department by January 25th of each year (or the
preceding business day if the 25th is not a business day) of the tier
of eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits committed to by the Market-
Maker Trading Permit Holder for that calendar year. Market-Makers are
not obligated to commit to either tier. However, the discounts will
apply only to those that do commit to Tier 1 or Tier 2 for the calendar
year (or remainder of the calendar year as described below). Trading
Permit Holders that are not eligible for and/or that do not commit to
Tier 1 or Tier 2 will continue to pay the standard rate for each
Market-Maker Trading Permit, regardless of the total number of Market-
Maker Trading Permits used.
    If a Trading Permit Holder chooses to commit to either Tier 1 or
Tier 2, that Trading Permit Holder will be assessed fees for at least
the minimum number of permits in the commitment tier for the remainder
of the calendar year.\4\ Even if a Trading Permit Holder no longer
maintains the minimum number of eligible Trading Permits in the
committed tier, that Trading Permit Holder is still responsible for the
minimum payment for that commitment tier for the remainder of the
calendar year. For example, a Trading Permit Holder that commits to
eleven eligible permits per month will be subject to a minimum monthly
access fee of $64,800 (10 x $6,000 plus $4,800 = $64,800) for that
calendar year. Any additional permits will increase the fee by the
applicable amount (i.e., if the subject Trading Permit Holder also
maintains an additional Trading Permit that is associated with an
appointment in OEX, the monthly access fee will be $70,800).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Trading Permit Holder may pay more than the tier minimum
for monthly access fees if the Trading Permit Holder has additional
Trading Permits that are not eligible for the sliding scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading Permit Holders may also choose to commit to a higher tier
of the sliding scale for the remainder of a calendar year, during a
commitment year, if the Trading Permit Holder obtains enough eligible
Market-Maker Trading Permits and provides written notification to the
Registration Services Department by the 25th day of the month preceding
the month in which the higher tier will be effective (or the preceding
business day if the 25th is not a business day). For example, a Trading
Permit Holder may provide written notice to commit to Tier 1 effective
July 1 for the remainder of the calendar year as long as the Trading
Permit Holder obtains enough eligible Trading Permits and provides
written notice by June 25th that the Trading Permit Holder would like
to participate in the sliding scale starting in July for the remainder
of the calendar year. Even if that Trading Permit Holder subsequently
falls below the minimum number of eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits
(in the committed calendar year), for the committed tier, the Trading
Permit Holder will remain responsible for paying at least the tier
minimum for the remainder of the calendar year.
    Trading Permit Holders will be responsible to pay for the minimum
amount of eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits (based on the
commitment tier) for the calendar year on a monthly basis unless the
Trading Permit Holder entirely terminates as a Trading Permit Holder
during the year. If a Trading Permit Holder combines, merges, or is
acquired during the course of the calendar year, the surviving Trading
Permit Holder will maintain responsibility for the committed number of
eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits.
    Section 6(b)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \5\ (the
``Act'') requires that: ``the rules of the exchange provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' The
proposed sliding scale is available to all Trading Permit Holders that
maintain eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits. In essence, CBOE is
offering a discounted fee in return for a commitment for a designated
period of time. Trading Permit Holders are not precluded from providing
notice that they wish to participate in the sliding scale program
throughout a calendar year as long as such notice is provided by the
25th day of the preceding month of effectiveness. CBOE is proposing to
offer this sliding scale as a benefit to those Trading Permit Holders
that commit in advance. There is no obligation to commit to either Tier
1 or Tier 2 of the sliding scale. Since Tier 2 requires a commitment of
twenty-one or greater permits, CBOE believes that Market-Makers quoting
all multiply listed classes may consider committing in advance to Tier
2. It requires approximately thirty Trading Permits for a Trading
Permit Holder to obtain Market-Maker appointments in all multiply-
listed classes at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE Rule 8.3(e) provides that the Exchange may establish one or
more types of tier appointments. In accordance with CBOE Rule 8.3(e), a
tier appointment is an appointment to trade one or more options classes
that must be held by a Market-Maker to be eligible to act as a Market-
Maker in the options class or options classes subject to that
appointment. CBOE currently maintains a tier appointment for Market-
Maker

Trading Permit Holders trading in SPX. The current Fees Schedule
provides that the SPX Tier Appointment fee will be assessed to any
Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that either (a) has an SPX Tier
Appointment at any time during a calendar month; or (b) conducts any
open outcry transactions in SPX at any time during a calendar month.
CBOE is proposing to delete this language from the section entitled
Assessment of Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet Fees and move this
language to Section 10(A)(ii) that describes the SPX Tier Appointment.
In addition, in conjunction with a recent rule filing enabling the
trading of certain series of options on the Hybrid trading platform
even though that class generally trades on Hybrid 3.0,\6\ CBOE is
proposing to clarify the description of the SPX Tier Appointment in
Section 10(A)(2) [sic] to clarify that the SPX Tier Appointment fee
will also be assessed to a Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that
submits open outcry transactions in SPX or electronic or open outcry
transactions in SPX Weeklys. SPX options trade on Hybrid 3.0 but CBOE
has recently listed series of SPX Weeklys that are currently trading on
Hybrid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63186 (October 27,
2010), 75 FR 67417 (November 2, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-095).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is now proposing to also establish a VIX Tier Appointment.
Effective January 3, 2010, a Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder must
obtain a VIX Tier Appointment to act as a Market-Maker in VIX. Further,
consistent with the provisions of Rule 8.3(e), each VIX Tier
Appointment may only be used with one designated Market-Maker Trading
Permit. The Exchange is proposing that the initial fee for a VIX Tier
Appointment be set at $1,000 per month.
    VIX Tier Appointment fees are non-refundable and will be assessed
through the integrated billing system during the first week of the
following month. The VIX Tier Appointment fee will be assessed to any
Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder, registered with the Exchange to
conduct business on the Exchange as a Market-Maker, that either (a) has
a VIX Tier Appointment at any time during a calendar month; or (b)
conducts any transactions in VIX at any time during a calendar month.
VIX Tier Appointments will be renewed automatically for the next month
unless the Trading Permit Holder submits by the 25th day of the prior
month (or the preceding business day if the 25th is not a business day)
a written notification to cancel the VIX Tier Appointment effective at
or prior to the end of the applicable month.
    The Fees Schedule previously established a monthly fee of $2,000
for an Electronic Access Permit. At the time the Electronic Access
Permits were implemented, CBOE determined to discount the fees by 20%
for the remainder of 2010. Thus, between July 2010 and December 2010,
CBOE assessed a fee of $1,600 per month for an Electronic Access
Permit. CBOE is proposing to decrease the $2,000 monthly fee for an
Electronic Access Permit to $1,600, which is the same as the current
level of this fee.
    In August 2010, CBOE amended its Fees Schedule and Trading Permit
Fee Circular to establish a fee scale for the purchase of Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets under which the cost of an Order Entry Bandwidth
Packet would decline at certain break points as additional Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets are purchased.\7\ Specifically, the first through
fifth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets obtained by a Trading Permit Holder
cost $2,000 per packet per month, the sixth through eighth Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets obtained by that Trading Permit Holder would cost
$1,000 per packet per month, the ninth through thirteenth Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets obtained by that Trading Permit Holder would cost
$500 per packet per month, and the fourteenth and each additional Order
Entry Bandwidth Packet obtained by that Trading Permit Holder would
cost $250 per packet per month. CBOE also discounted these fees by 20%
for the remainder of 2010. CBOE is now proposing to decrease the
monthly fee scale for Order Entry Bandwidth Packets such that the first
through fifth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets obtained by a Trading
Permit Holder would cost $1,600 per packet per month, the sixth through
eighth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets obtained by that Trading Permit
Holder would cost $800 per packet per month, the ninth through
thirteenth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets obtained by that Trading
Permit Holder would cost $400 per packet per month, and the fourteenth
and each additional Order Entry Bandwidth Packet obtained by that
Trading Permit Holder would cost $200 per packet per month (which is
the same as the current level of these fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62704 (August 12,
2010), 75 FR 51132 (August 18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE also amended its Fees Schedule in August 2010 to allow Trading
Permit Holders to obtain and assign to a particular Sponsored User of
the Trading Permit Holder one or more Order Entry Bandwidth Packets.\8\
In that event, the fees for the assigned bandwidth packet(s) would be
assessed to the Trading Permit Holder and the bandwidth packet(s) could
be utilized solely by the Sponsored User (and not by the Trading Permit
Holder or any other Sponsored User).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Fees for Order Entry Bandwidth Packets assigned to a particular
Sponsored User are also subject to a fee scale, similar to the fee
scale in place for the Order Entry Bandwidth Packet assigned to a
particular Trading Permit Holder. Specifically, the full fee scale for
Order Entry Bandwidth Packets assigned by a Trading Permit Holder to a
Sponsored User provides that the first through sixth Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets assigned to the Sponsored User would cost $2,000 per
packet per month, the seventh through ninth Order Entry Bandwidth
Packets assigned to that Sponsored User would cost $1,000 per packet
per month, the tenth through fourteenth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets
assigned to that Sponsored User would cost $500 per packet per month,
and the fifteenth and each additional Order Entry Bandwidth Packet
assigned to that Sponsored User would cost $250 per packet per month.
CBOE also discounted these fees by 20% for the remainder of 2010. CBOE
is now proposing to decrease the monthly fee scale for Order Entry
Bandwidth Packets assigned by a Trading Permit Holder to a particular
Sponsored User such that the first through sixth Order Entry Bandwidth
Packets assigned to the Sponsored User would cost $1,600 per packet per
month, the seventh through ninth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets assigned
to that Sponsored User would cost $800 per packet per month, the tenth
through fourteenth Order Entry Bandwidth Packets assigned to that
Sponsored User would cost $400 per packet per month, and the fifteenth
and each additional Order Entry Bandwidth Packet assigned to that
Sponsored User would cost $200 per packet per month (which is the same
as the current level of these fees).
    CBOE is also proposing to make two technical changes to Section 10
of the CBOE Fees Schedule. First, CBOE is proposing to modify the
numbering of the section setting forth the Trading Permit and tier
appointment fees and the accompanying descriptions to reflect the
addition of the VIX Tier Appointment. In addition, CBOE is proposing to
remove references throughout Section 10 of the Fees Schedule to Trading
Permit, tier

appointment and bandwidth packet fees regarding the assessment of these
fees in 2010 as this language is outdated and no longer necessary.
    CBOE is also proposing to make two changes to Section 11 of the
CBOE Fees Schedule. First, CBOE is proposing to increase the Inactive
Nominee Status fee from $750 to $900. This fee is payable quarterly by
a TPH organization for each inactive nominee status that the TPH
organization wishes to maintain. (e.g., a TPH organization firm
desiring the ability to have three parking spaces within which to
designate inactive nominees would pay this fee at the beginning of each
quarter for each of the three parking spaces). In addition, CBOE is
proposing to increase the Fingerprint Processing Fee from $50 to $60.
This fee is assessed for employees of Trading Permit Holders and any
other individual requesting the Exchange to process a fingerprint,
electronically or otherwise, excluding fingerprint requirements for
Individual Applicants, individuals applying for Renewal/Change of
Status, and Associated Persons. CBOE is proposing to increase these
fees to account for an increase in resources required to process
inactive nominee information, fingerprints, and related requests. The
Inactive Nominee Status Fee and the Fingerprint Processing Fee have not
been increased in three years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57191 (January 24,
2008), 73 FR 5611 (January 30, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-150).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed changes to the Fees Schedule described
above, CBOE is proposing to revise its regulatory circular that sets
forth the existing Trading Permit Holder application and other related
fees. The Exchange proposes to revise this circular to incorporate the
changes to Sections 10 and 11 of the CBOE Fees Schedule that are
described above, as well as to clarify the description of the
Fingerprint Processing Fee to provide that only those associated
persons that are subject to the Associated Person Application [sic] Fee
are not subject to the Fingerprint Processing Fee. The proposed changes
to the circular are included as Exhibit 2 to the Form 19b-4.
    2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change will treat similarly situated Trading
Permit Holders in the same manner. Specifically, CBOE shall assess the
same base Trading Permit, tier appointment and bandwidth packet fees to
all Trading Permit Holders based on the type of tier appointment
requested and type and number of Trading Permit(s) and bandwidth
packet(s) requested. All Trading Permit Holders may elect to receive a
discounted price if the Trading Permit Holder commits in advance to a
minimum number of eligible Market-Maker Trading Permits for a calendar
year. Trading Permit Holders that do not wish to commit in advance to a
minimum number of eligible Trading Permits for a calendar year will be
subject to the standard rate for each Market-Maker Trading Permit.
Further, CBOE shall assess the Fingerprint Processing Fee and Inactive
Nominee Status Fee in the same manner to all Trading Permit Holders.
For the reasons stated in the purpose section, CBOE is also proposing
to add a VIX Tier Appointment and assess a $1,000 monthly fee to any
Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder (a) that executes more than 20,000
VIX contracts during the month and (b) whose aggregate VIX executed
contracts during the month comprise more than 30% of the Floor Broker
Trading Permit Holder's exchange-wide total executed contracts.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in particular, in
that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among persons using its
facilities for the reasons described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-004. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2011-004 and should be
submitted on or before February 9, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-955 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P