[Federal Register: April 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 16888-16891]
[DOCID:fr02ap10-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61785; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Correlated
Instrument Delta Hedge Exemption

March 25, 2010.
    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 March 19, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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
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

    CBOE proposes to (i) expand the delta hedging exemption available
for equity options position limits, (ii) amend the reporting
requirements applicable to members relying on the delta hedging
exemption, and (iii) adopt a delta hedging exemption from certain index
options position limits. The text of the rule proposal 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.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

I. Expansion of Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption

    On December 14, 2007,\3\ the Commission approved a proposed rule
change establishing an exemption from equity options position and
exercise limits for positions held by CBOE members, and certain of
their affiliates, that are ``delta neutral'' \4\ under a ``permitted
pricing model'' \5\, subject to certain conditions (``Exemption'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72428 (December 20, 2007). The exemption was extended
to certain customers whose accounts are carried by a member. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60555 (August 21, 2009), 74 FR
43741 (August 27, 2009).
    \4\ The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in Rule 4.11.04(c)(A)
as referring to an equity option position that is hedged, in
accordance with a permitted pricing model, by a position in the
underlying security or one or more instruments relating to the
underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting the risk that the
value of the option position will change with incremental changes in
the price of the security underlying the option position.
    \5\ Permitted pricing model is defined in Rule 4.11.04(c)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' of a hedged
equity option position is subject to the position limits under Rule
4.11, subject to the availability of other exemptions.\6\ Currently,
the Exemption only is available for securities that directly underlie
the applicable option position. This means that with respect to options
on exchange-traded funds (``ETF options''), index options overlying the
same index on which the ETF is based currently cannot be combined with
the ETF options to calculate a net delta for purposes of the Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' is
defined in Rule 4.11.04(c)(B) as the net delta divided by the number
of shares underlying the option contract. The term ``net delta'' is
defined in the same rule to mean, at any time, the number of shares
(either long or short) required to offset the risk that the value of
an equity option position will change with incremental changes in
the price of the security underlying the option position, as
determined in accordance with a permitted pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many ETF options overlie exchange-traded funds that track the
performance of an index. For example, options on Standard & Poor's
Depositary Receipts (``SPY'') track the performance of the S&P 500
index. Market participants often hedge SPY options with options on the
S&P 500 Index (``SPX options'') or with other financial instruments
based on the S&P 500 Index for risk management purposes. The Exchange
believes that in order for eligible market participants to more fully
benefit from the Exemption as it relates to ETF options, securities and
other instruments that are based on the same underlying ETF or the same
index on which the ETF is based should also be included in any
determination of an ETF option position's net delta or whether the
options position is hedged delta neutral.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ However, this would not include baskets of securities for
purposes of the Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to expand the Exemption by
amending Rule 4.11.04(c)(A) to permit equity option positions for which
the underlying security is an ETF that is based on the same index as an
index option to be combined with an index option position for
calculation of the delta-based equity hedge exemption. The proposed
rule would allow financial products such as securities index options,
index futures, and options on index futures to be included along with
the ETF in an equity option's net delta calculation. So for example,
the proposed rule would allow SPY options to be hedged not only with
SPY shares, but with S&P 500 options, S&P 500 futures, options on S&P
500 futures or any other instrument that tracks the performance of or
is based on the S&P 500 index. This would be accomplished by including
such positions with a related index option position in accordance with
the Delta-Based Index Hedge Exemption rule proposed below.
    Index options and equity options (i.e., ETF options) that are
eligible to be combined for computing a delta-based hedge exemption,
along with all securities and/or other instruments that are based on or
track the performance of the same underlying security or index, will be
grouped and the net delta and options contract equivalent of the net
delta will be calculated for each respective option class based on
offsets realized from the grouping as a whole.

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``net delta'' in
Rule 4.11.04(c)(B) to mean, at any time, the number of shares and/or
other units of trade \8\ (either long or short) required to offset the
risk that the value of an equity option position will change with
incremental changes in the price of the security underlying the option
position, as determined in accordance with a permitted pricing model.
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of the ``option contract
equivalent of the net delta'' to mean the net delta divided by the
number of shares that equate to one option contract on a delta
basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Other units of trade'' would include, for example, options
or futures contracts hedging the relevant option position. When
determining whether an ETF option hedged with other instruments such
as ETF or index options is delta neutral, the relative size of the
ETF option when compared to the other product is taken into
consideration. For example, SPX options are ten (10) times larger
than SPY options thus 1 SPX delta is equivalent to .10 SPY deltas.
    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 4.11.04(c)(C)(2) to
clarify that there is no longer a consolidated supervision program
by the SEC pursuant to Appendix E of Rule 15c3-1 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Reporting Requirement

    Rule 4.11.04(c)(F) sets forth the reporting requirements applicable
to CBOE members who rely on the Exemption. The Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 4.11.04(c)(F) to exempt from the reporting requirements
Exchange Market-Makers and Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')
relying on the Exemption who use the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') pricing model, because Market-Maker and DPM position and
delta information can be accessed through the Exchange's market
surveillance systems. This proposed exemption is consistent with
similar exemptions from the reporting requirements under Rule 4.13 and
those applicable to broad-based index options and FLEX options.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rules 4.13(b), 24.4.03 and 24A.7(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Delta-Based Index Hedge Exemption

    Most index options traded on the Exchange are subject to position
and exercise limits, as provided under CBOE Rules 24.4, 24.4A and
24.4B.\11\ Certain broad-based index options are not subject to
position and exercise limits.\12\ Position limits are imposed,
generally, to prevent the establishment of options positions that can
be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the
underlying market so as to benefit the holder of the options position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rules 24.4, 24.4A and 24.4B provide position limits for
broad-based index options, industry index options and micro narrow-
based index options, respectively.
    \12\ Broad-based index options not subject to position and
exercise limits are DJX, OEX, XEO, NDX, RUT, VIX, VXN, VXD and SPX.
See CBOE Rules 24.4(a) and 24.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Index options are often used by market participants such as
institutional investors to hedge large portfolios. Exchange rules
include hedge exemptions to allow certain positions in index options in
excess of the applicable standard position limit if hedged with an
Exchange-approved qualified portfolio.\13\ Under Rule 24.4.01(c)
(broad-based index hedge exemption), a qualified portfolio may consist
of common stocks or securities readily convertible to common stock,
and/or index futures contracts, options on index futures contracts, or
long or short positions in index options or index warrants that meet
certain standards. Under Rule 24.4A.01(a) (industry index hedge
exemption), a qualified portfolio may consist only of underlying
component stocks or in securities readily convertible to such component
stocks. In the case of both hedge exemptions, the maximum size of the
exempt position is set at a specified maximum number of contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 24.4 (broad-based
index hedge exemption) and Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
24.4A (industry index hedge exemption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that any limit on the ability of market
participants to use index options to hedge their portfolios exposes
market participants to unnecessary risk on the unhedged portion of
their portfolios. The Exchange proposes to adopt a delta-based
exemption from index option position and exercise limits that is
substantially similar to the delta-based equity hedge exemption under
Rule 4.11.04(c). A delta-based index hedge exemption would provide
market participants the ability to accumulate an unlimited number of
index options contracts provided that such contracts are properly delta
hedged in accordance with the requirements of the exemption.
    Proposed Exemption. The Exchange proposes to adopt an exemption
from index options position and exercise limits \14\ for positions held
by CBOE members and certain of their affiliates, and customers that are
``delta neutral'' (as defined below) under a ``permitted pricing
model'' (as defined below), subject to certain conditions (``Index
Exemption''). The Index Exemption under proposed Rule 24.4.05 would
also apply to industry index options under proposed Rule 24.4A.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Exchange Rule 24.5 establishes exercise limits for an index
option at the same level as the index option's position limit under
index options position limit rules, therefore no changes are
proposed to Rule 24.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in proposed Rule 24.4.05(A)
as referring to an index option position that is hedged, in accordance
with a permitted pricing model, by a position in one or more correlated
instruments for the purpose of offsetting the risk that the value of
the option position will change with incremental changes in the value
of the underlying index. Correlated instruments would be defined to
mean securities and/or other instruments that track the performance of
or are based on the same underlying index as the index underlying the
option position. These definitions would allow financial products such
as ETF options, index futures, options on index futures and ETFs that
track the performance of or are based on the same underlying index to
be included in an index option's net delta calculation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Supra footnote 5 (sic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any index option position that is not delta neutral would be
subject to position and exercise limits, subject to the availability of
other exemptions. Only the ``options contract equivalent of the net
delta'' of such position would be subject to the appropriate position
limit.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under proposed Rule 24.4.05(B), the term ``options contract
equivalent of the net delta'' is defined as the net delta divided by
units of trade that equate to one option contract on a delta basis,
and the term ``net delta'' is defined as, at any time, the number of
shares and/or other units of trade (either long or short) required
to offset the risk that the value of an index option position will
change with incremental changes in the value of the underlying
index, as determined in accordance with a permitted pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, members could not use the same positions in correlated
instruments in connection with more than one hedge exemption.
Therefore, a position in correlated instruments used as part of a delta
hedging strategy could not also serve as the basis for any other index
hedge exemption.
    Permitted Pricing Model. Under the proposed rule, the calculation
of the delta for any index option position, and the determination of
whether a particular index option position is hedged delta neutral,
must be made using a permitted pricing model. A ``permitted pricing
model'' is defined in proposed Rule 24.4.05(C) to have the same meaning
as defined in Rule 4.11.04(c)(C), namely, the pricing model maintained
and operated by OCC and the pricing models used by (i) a member or its
affiliate subject to consolidated supervision by the SEC or pursuant to
Appendix E of SEC Rule 15c3-1; (ii) a financial holding company
(``FHC'') or a company treated as an FHC under the

Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or its affiliate subject to
consolidated holding company group supervision; \17\ (iii) an SEC
registered OTC derivatives dealer; \18\ and (iv) a national bank.\19\
Customers seeking to use the delta-based index hedge exemption could
only hedge their position in accordance with the OCC model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The pricing model of an FHC or of an affiliate of an FHC
would have to be consistent with: (i) The requirements of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Fed''), as amended
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based
adjustments to capital for market risk under capital requirements of
the Fed, provided that the member or affiliate of a member relying
on this exemption in connection with the use of such model is an
entity that is part of such company's consolidated supervised
holding company group; or (ii) the standards published by the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision, as amended from time to time and
as implemented by such company's principal regulator, in connection
with the calculation of risk-based deductions or adjustments to or
allowances for the market risk capital requirements of such
principal regulator applicable to such company--where ``principal
regulator'' means a member of the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision that is the home country consolidated supervisor of such
company--provided that the member or affiliate of a member relying
on this exemption in connection with the use of such model is an
entity that is part of such company's consolidated supervised
holding company group. See subparagraph (C) of proposed Rule
24.4.05, which incorporates Rule 4.11.04(c)(C).
    \18\ The pricing model of an SEC registered OTC derivatives
dealer would have to be consistent with the requirements of Appendix
F to SEC Rule 15c3-1 and SEC Rule 15c3-4 under the Act, as amended
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based
deductions from capital for market risk thereunder. Only an OTC
derivatives dealer and no other affiliated entity (including a
member) would be able to rely on this part of the Exemption. See
subparagraph (C) of proposed Rule 24.4.05, which incorporates Rule
4.11.04(c)(C).
    \19\ The pricing model of a national bank would have to be
consistent with the requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, as amended from time to time, in connection with the
calculation of risk-based adjustments to capital for market risk
under capital requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency. Only a national bank and no other affiliated entity
(including a member) would be able to rely on this part of the
Exemption. See subparagraph (C) of proposed Rule 24.4.05, which
incorporates Rule 4.11.04(c)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggregation of Accounts. Members, non-member affiliates and
customers relying on the Index Exemption would be required to ensure
that the permitted pricing model is applied to all positions in
correlated instruments hedging the relevant option position that are
owned or controlled by the member, or its affiliates.
    However, the net delta of an index option position held by an
entity entitled to rely on the Index Exemption, or by a separate and
distinct trading unit of such entity, may be calculated without regard
to positions in correlated instruments held by an affiliated entity or
by another trading unit within the same entity, provided that: (i) The
entity demonstrates to the Exchange's satisfaction that no control
relationship, as defined in Rule 4.11.03, exists between such
affiliates or trading units, and (ii) the entity has provided the
Exchange written notice in advance that it intends to be considered
separate and distinct from any affiliate, or, as applicable, which
trading units within the entity are to be considered separate and
distinct from each other for purposes of the Index Exemption.\20\ The
Exchange has set forth in Regulatory Circular RG08-12 the conditions
under which it will deem no control relationship to exist between
affiliated broker-dealers and between separate and distinct trading
units within the same broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See subparagraph (D) of proposed Rule 24.4.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any member, non-member affiliate or customer relying on the Index
Exemption must designate, by prior written notice to the Exchange, each
trading unit or entity whose options positions are required by Exchange
rules to be aggregated with the options positions of such member, non-
member affiliate or customer relying on the Index Exemption for
purposes of compliance with Exchange position or exercise limits.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(D)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obligations of Members and Affiliates. Any member relying on the
Index Exemption would be required to provide a written certification to
the Exchange that it is using a permitted pricing model as defined in
the rule for purposes of the Index Exemption. In addition, by such
reliance, such member would authorize any other person carrying for
such member an account including, or with whom such member has entered
into, a position in a correlated instrument hedging the relevant option
position to provide to the Exchange or OCC such information regarding
such account or position as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of
the Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any net
delta calculation under this exemption.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See subparagraph (E) of proposed Rule 24.4.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The index option positions of a non-member affiliate relying on the
Index Exemption must be carried by a member with which it is
affiliated. A member carrying an account that includes an index option
position for a non-member affiliate that intends to rely on the Index
Exemption would be required to obtain from such non-member affiliate a
written certification that it is using a permitted pricing model as
defined in the rule for purposes of the Index Exemption.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In addition, the member would be required to obtain from
such non-member affiliate a written statement confirming that such
non-member affiliate: (a) Is relying on the Index Exemption; (b)
will use only a permitted pricing model for purposes of calculating
the net delta of its option positions for purposes of the Index
Exemption; (c) will promptly notify the member if it ceases to rely
on the Index Exemption; (d) authorizes the member to provide to the
Exchange or the OCC such information regarding positions of the non-
member affiliate as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of the
Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any net
delta calculation under the Index Exemption; and (e) if the non-
member affiliate is using the OCC Model, has duly executed and
delivered to the Exchange such documents as the Exchange may require
to be executed and delivered to the Exchange as a condition to
reliance on the Exemption. See subparagraph (E)(3) of proposed Rule
24.4.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member carrying an account that includes an index option position
for a customer that intends to rely on the Index Exemption would be
required to obtain from such customer and provide to the Exchange a
written certification that the customer is using the OCC Model as
defined in the rule for purposes of the Index Exemption.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In addition, the member would be required to obtain from
such customer a written statement confirming that such customer: (a)
Is relying on this exemption; (b) will use only the OCC Model for
purposes of calculating the net delta of the customer's option
positions for purposes of this exemption; (c) will promptly notify
the member if the customer ceases to rely on this exemption; (d) in
connection with using the OCC Model, has duly executed and delivered
to the member such documents as the Exchange may require to be
executed and delivered to the Exchange as a condition to reliance on
this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting. Under proposed Rule 24.4.05(F), each member (other than
an Exchange Market-Maker, DPM or LMM using the OCC Model) relying on
the Index Exemption would be required to report, in accordance with
Rule 4.13,\25\ (i) all index option positions (including those that are
delta neutral) that are reportable thereunder, and (ii) on its own
behalf or on behalf of a designated aggregation unit pursuant to Rule
24.4.05(D), for each such account that holds an index option position
subject to the Index Exemption in excess of the levels specified in
Rule 24.4 (and Rule 24.4A, in the case of industry index options) the
net delta and the options contract equivalent of the net delta of such
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Exchange Rule 4.13 requires, among other things, that
members report to the Exchange aggregate long or short positions on
the same side of the market of 200 or more contracts of any single
class of options contracts dealt in on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Records. Under proposed Rule 24.4.05(G), each member relying on the
Index Exemption would be required to (i) retain, and would be required
to undertake reasonable efforts to ensure that any non-member affiliate
of the

member or customer relying on the Index Exemption retains, a list of
the options, securities and other instruments underlying each options
position net delta calculation reported to the Exchange hereunder, and
(ii) produce such information to the Exchange upon request.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ A member would be authorized to report position information
of its non-member affiliate pursuant to the written statement
required under proposed Rule 24.4.05(E)(3)(ii)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliance on Federal Oversight. As provided under proposed Rule
24.4.05(C), a permitted pricing model includes proprietary pricing
models used by members and affiliates that have been approved by the
SEC, the Fed or another Federal financial regulator. In adopting the
proposed Index Exemption the Exchange would be relying upon the
rigorous approval processes and ongoing oversight of a Federal
financial regulator. The Exchange notes that it would not be under any
obligation to verify whether a member's or its affiliate's use of a
proprietary pricing model is appropriate or yielding accurate results.
    The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a regulatory circular to be published no later than 60 days
after Commission approval. The effective date shall be no later than 30
days after publication of the regulatory circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\27\, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \28\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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 Exchange believes
that allowing correlated instruments to be included in the calculation
of an equity option's net delta would enable eligible market
participants to more fully realize the benefit of the delta based
equity hedge exemption. The proposed delta-based index hedge exemption
would be substantially similar to the delta-based equity hedge
exemption under Rule 4.11.04. Also, the Commission has previously
stated its support for recognizing options positions hedged on a delta
neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23,
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (adopting rules
relating to OTC Derivatives Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 such 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-021 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-2010-021. 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,\30\ 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, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-CBOE-2010-021 and should be
submitted on or before April 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-7462 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 32063]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-29-002]

Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 25, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2006, Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.
(Freebird) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on the filing, with an effective
date of June 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 30, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8526 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64398-64400]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0312]

Hours of Service of Drivers: American Bakers Association and
International Dairy Foods Association; Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the joint request from
the American Bakers Association (ABA) and International Dairy Foods
Association (IDFA) for an exemption from the Federal hours-of-service
(HOS) rules for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The requested
exemption would have covered rivers engaged in the delivery of baked
goods and milk products in anticipation of a natural disaster or
emergency, such as extreme weather events, natural disasters, etc.
FMCSA analyzed the application and public comments, and determined that
drivers operating under the proposed exemption would not achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0312, in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's
decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b))
with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if
granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of an exemption. An
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The American Bakers Association (ABA) represents the wholesale
baking industry; the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)
represents the dairy manufacturing and marketing industry. ABA/IDFA
seek an exemption from the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3, ``Maximum
driving time for property-carrying vehicles,'' for their drivers
delivering ``essential food staples,'' particularly baked goods and
milk products, in anticipation of natural disasters or other emergency
conditions. The requested exemption would cover only the 72-hour period
in advance of, during, and shortly after the emergency condition, when
ABA/IDFA claim the hours-of-service (HOS) rules can be an unintended
barrier to efficient disaster preparations and operations.
    The applicants indicated that disaster conditions would include the
events listed in the definition of ``Emergency'' in 49 CFR 390.5 but be
modified to encompass conditions that are expected but have not yet
occurred. The exemption would apply 72-hours in advance of the time
that a natural disaster or emergency is reasonably anticipated until a
reasonable time after the disaster has ended. The applicants state
that, although some element of reasonable judgment is necessarily
inherent in this proposed approach, a definition that is tied to Sec.
390.23 would defeat the purpose of the exemption by forcing suppliers
to wait for the issuance of an official Declaration of Emergency by the
President, State governors, or FMCSA, which would often leave
insufficient lead time to avoid the depletion of the merchandise from
the shelves. Accordingly, the requested exemption would allow suppliers
to use reasonable judgment based on early warning announcements, such
as hazardous weather announcements. Per ABA/IDFA, the best way to
prepare for anticipated disasters or emergencies is to increase
delivery runs ahead of the impending situation.
    In short, this exemption would allow suppliers of essential food
staples to increase driving hours to pre-stock stores before an
emergency made such deliveries more difficult or even impossible. The
exemption would help avoid shortages of essential food staples at
retail stores and food establishments that could otherwise result if
deliveries are restricted by the generally applicable HOS rules in 49
CFR 395.
    The application for exemption is in the docket for this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On December 18, 2018, FMCSA published notice of this application
and requested public comments (83 FR 64927). The Agency received 13
comments. Four commenters, including the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), opposed the exemption request. CVSA said it was both
unjustified and impractical. Per CVSA, exemptions from Federal safety
regulations have the potential to undermine safety while complicating
the enforcement process. Furthermore, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations exist to ensure
that those operating in the transportation industry are equipped to do
so safely. CVSA stated that, if granted, the exemption would burden the
enforcement community excessively and impact safety negatively. CVSA
added that exemptions cause confusion and inconsistency in enforcement,
which undermines the very foundation of the Federal commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) enforcement program--uniformity. CVSA insisted that
regulations are effective only if they are clear and enforceable.
    Four other commenters also opposed the application, indicating that
the HOS ``blanket'' exemption requested by ABA/IDFA is covered by 49
CFR 390.23, which provides regulatory relief for regional and local
declared emergencies.
    Eight commenters supported the ABA/IDFA exemption. One said the
following, ``In the current driver shortage, finding the capacity to
deliver our products is hard enough. Ahead of a storm, where the need
for bread dramatically increases, increasing delivery capacity is
nearly impossible. If this exemption were to be granted, these
companies would be able to utilize this flexibility to keep up with
demands for our food products. The exemption would not only help our
company meet this increased demand, but would also dramatically
increase roadway safety by reducing the number of driver who run out of
hours in traffic.''

V. FMCSA Response and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated ABA/IDFA's joint application and the public
comments and decided to deny the exemption. When the Agency established
the rules mandating HOS, it relied upon research indicating that the
rules improve CMV safety. These regulations put limits in place for
when and how long an individual may drive to ensure that drivers stay
awake and alert while driving and on a continuing basis to help reduce
the possibility of driver fatigue.
    The ABA/IDFA application provides neither an analysis of the
potential safety impacts of the requested exemption nor countermeasures
to be undertaken to ensure that the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulations. In addition, comments received--
most notably those comments from CVSA--opposed the granting of the
exemption as it could cause confusion and undermine enforcement.
    The Agency cannot ensure that the exemption would achieve an
equivalent level of safety for the following reasons:
    1. The terms and conditions, as proposed in the application, would
provide unlimited flexibility in: Driving more than 11-hours, following
10 consecutive hours off-duty; driving after the 14th hour of coming on
duty; driving after accumulating 60 hours on duty in 7 consecutive
days, or 70 hours on duty in 8 consecutive days; accumulating less than
10 consecutive hours off duty following a work shift. The exemption
would not include specific criteria controlling drivers' work and rest
schedules which makes it impossible to ensure there is an equivalent
level of safety for drivers operating under the exemption. Also, the
absence of specific criteria or terms

means the exemption could not be enforced.
    2. The exemption would allow unlimited flexibility based on weather
or other conditions which may or may not result in an emergency
declaration. Relief would be provided in anticipation of problems. In
fact, ABA/IDFA member companies would be allowed to determine whether
the weather conditions warrant the use of the exemption based on their
judgment or reasonable anticipation of the need for certain food
products. Also, there would be no documentation clearly identifying
which drivers are responding to the urgent need identified by the ABA/
IDFA member companies. Enforcement officials would have no way of
knowing whether a driver was operating under such an exemption except
by asking him/her. FMCSA cannot delegate to private parties the
inherently Federal authority to determine the applicability of an
exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
    For the reasons discussed above, FMCSA denies the request for
exemption.

    Issued on: November 14, 2019.
Jim Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-25337 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44017-44018]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Risk Communication Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Risk Communication Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on August 15, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. and August 16, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You'', click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Lee L. Zwanziger, Office of Policy, Planning and
Budget, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, rm. 3278, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and follow
the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On August 15, 2011, the Committee will discuss challenges
of communicating about evolving methodology in the attribution of
foodborne illness. Estimating the number of illnesses,
hospitalizations, and deaths caused by major pathogens is the first
step in the development of disease prevention strategies. Estimating
the proportions of these illnesses due to specific food sources (food
source attribution) is a necessary second step towards identifying the
sources that cause substantial preventable human illness and measuring
progress toward public health goals resulting from public health
interventions applied to those food sources. Consequently, FDA, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture/Food Safety Inspection Service have begun a joint
initiative, called the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration
(IFSAC), to improve our collective understanding of source attribution
of infections to specific foods and settings. While the IFSAC works to
improve methodology, we are also committed to keeping stakeholders
informed and engaged, and are seeking advice about how to communicate
most effectively. On August 16, 2011, the Committee will present
``Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide.''
This volume is the result of work, as discussed in previous meetings,
by current and former members of the Risk Communication Advisory
Committee.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
August 10, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on August 15, 2011, and 10:30
a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on August 16, 2011. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before August 2, 2011. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by August 3, 2011. Interested persons can also
log on to https://collaboration.fda.gov/rcac/ to hear and see the
proceedings.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical

disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations
due to a disability, please contact Lee L. Zwanziger at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-18507 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 188 (Friday, October 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 54446]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1139-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Middlesex
Ext CPV 911793 to be effective 9/25/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210922-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1140-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TIGT 2021-09-22 Negotiated
Rate Agreement Amendment to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210922-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1141-000.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Talos 630210
eff 9-22-2021 to be effective 9/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210922-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1142-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report
from January through June 2021 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210923-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1144-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming--Atlantic
Sunrise--JPMorgan Chase to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20210923-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1145-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description:Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PAL NRA JP Morgan SP370513 &
SP370514 to be effective 10/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20210924-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 27, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21408 Filed 9-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42869-42870]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19236]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32808; File No. 812-14697]

Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust and Active Weighting Advisors
LLC

September 6, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections 6(c)
and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end
investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end
investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies,
business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the
Act (``BDCs''), and registered unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

Applicants: Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust (the ``Trust''), a
Delaware statutory trust that will be registered under the Act as an
open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Active
Weighting Advisors LLC (the ``Initial Advisor''), a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware that is, or
will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 31, 2016, and amended
on January 13, 2017, and May 25, 2017. Applicants have agreed to file
an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is
reflected in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on October 2, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 490 Royal Lake
Drive, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at
(202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's
Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) each
Underlying Fund that is a registered open-end management investment
company or series thereof, their principal underwriters and any broker
or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to sell
shares of the Underlying Funds to the Fund of Funds in excess of the
limits in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants also request an
order of exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from the
prohibition on certain affiliated transactions in section 17(a) of the
Act to the extent necessary to permit the Underlying Funds to sell
their shares to, and redeem their shares from, the Funds of Funds.\4\
Applicants state that such transactions will be consistent with the
policies of each Fund of Funds and each Underlying Fund and with the
general purposes of the Act and will be based on the net asset values
of the Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply not only to any
existing series of the Trust, but that the order also extend to any
future series of the Trust and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment companies and any series
thereof that are, or may in the future be, advised by the Initial
Advisor or its successor or any other investment adviser
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial
Advisor or its successor and that are part of the same group of
investment companies, as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the
Act, as the Trust (together with the existing series of the Trust,
each series a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds''). For
purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an
entity that results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization. For purposes of
the request for relief, the term ``group of investment companies''
means any two or more registered investment companies, including
closed-end investment companies and BDCs, that hold themselves out
to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and
investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants are not requesting relief for a Fund of Funds to
invest in BDCs and registered closed-end investment companies that
are not listed and traded on a national securities exchange.
    \4\ Applicants note that a Fund of Funds generally would
purchase and sell shares of an Underlying Fund that operates as an
ETF or closed-end fund through secondary market transactions rather
than through principal transactions with the Underlying Fund.
Applicants nevertheless request relief from sections 17(a)(l) and
(2) to permit each Fund of Funds that is an affiliated person, or an
affiliated person of an affiliated person, as defined in section
2(a)(3) of the 1940 Act, of an ETF or closed-end fund to purchase or
redeem shares from the ETF or closed-end fund. Applicants are not
seeking relief from section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will
not apply to, transactions where an ETF, BDC or closed-end fund
could be deemed an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an
affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds because an investment adviser
to the ETF, BDC or closed-end fund or an entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser to
the ETF, BDC or closed-end fund is also an investment adviser to the
Fund of Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help
prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that
is not in the same ``group of investment companies'' as the Fund of
Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
    3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may
exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section
12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the
proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve
overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered
investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the
Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from
any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19236 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78216-78217]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-150-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC ; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Proposed Line WB2VA Integrity Project

    On April 2, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) filed
an application in Docket No. CP15-150-000, requesting authorization and
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section
7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, to abandon, modify, and install
certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known
as the Line WB2VA Integrity Project. The purpose of the project is to
allow the use of modern inline inspection devices and upgrade pipeline
segments in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation safety
standards.
    On April 15, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--January 28, 2016.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--April 27, 2016.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Project Description

    The Line WB2VA Integrity Project would include modifications to
Columbia's existing facilities at 17 sites in Hardy County, West
Virginia, and Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, and Greene Counties,
Virginia. Proposed modifications include installation of pig launchers
and receivers; replacement of short sections of existing pipeline,
mainline valves, and other appurtenant facilities; and abandonment of
two existing 20-inch-diameter pipelines beneath the South Fork of the
Shenandoah River that would be replaced with a new 24-inch-diameter
pipeline.

Background

    On May 14, 2015, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed WB2VA Integrity Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was
published in the Federal Register and was mailed to 163 interested
parties, including federal, state, and local government representatives
and agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; potentially interested Native American tribes;
other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
    In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from non-
government organizations, and federal and state agencies. The primary
environmental issues raised by the commentors include: air quality,
steep slopes and slope-prone soils, recreation, public lands, karst
topography, threatened and endangered species,

wetlands and waterbodies, cumulative impacts, and alternatives.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources, and West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection are cooperating agencies for preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals, the Commission
offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount
of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct
links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the menu, enter the selected date range and
``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP15-150), and
follow the instructions. For assistance with eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: December 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31609 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52270-52271]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0350; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kotzebue, AK; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on July 23, 2020. The
rule modified Class E airspace designated as a surface area. The rule
also modified Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface and Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface at Ralph Wien Memorial Airport. The final rule inadvertently
included spelling errors within the airport's name in several sections
of the Final Rule. This action corrects the spelling errors throughout
the final rule document.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by

reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (85 FR
44467; July 23, 2020) for Docket FAA-2020-0350 amending Class E
airspace designated as a surface area. Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface and Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. Subsequent to publication,
the FAA identified the spelling errors within the airport's name
throughout the document. This action corrects spelling errors.
    Class E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph
6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8,
2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment
of the Class E Airspace; Kotzebue, AK, published in the Federal
Register of July 23, 2020 (85 FR 44467), FR Doc. 2020-15930, is
corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1   [Corrected]

0
1. On page 44467, in the third column, in the Summary section, in the
first paragraph, the airport name is corrected from Ralph Wein Memorial
airport to Ralph Wien Memorial Airport.

Sec.  71.1   [Corrected]

0
2. On page 44468, in the first column, in the Authority for This
Rulemaking section, the airport name is corrected from Ralph Wein
Memorial airport to Ralph Wien Memorial Airport.

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 44468, in the first column, in the History section, in the
first paragraph, the airport name is corrected from Ralph Wein Memorial
airport to Ralph Wien Memorial Airport.

Sec.  71.1   [Corrected]

0
4. On page 44468, in the second column, in The Rule section, in the
first paragraph, the airport name is corrected from Ralph Wein Memorial
airport to Ralph Wien Memorial Airport.

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
5. On page 44468, in the second column, in The Rule section, in the
second paragraph, the airport name is corrected from Ralph Wein
Memorial airport to Ralph Wien Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 19, 2020.
B. G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-18538 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P