[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37337-37338]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75287; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amending Rule 6.42 To Extend Its Penny
Pilot Until June 30, 2016

June 24, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Penny Pilot Program (the ``Pilot Program'') is scheduled to
expire on June 30, 2015. CBOE proposes to extend the Pilot Program
until June 30, 2016. CBOE believes that extending the Pilot Program
will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a
determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the
future.
    During this extension of the Pilot Program, CBOE proposes that it
may replace any option class that is currently included in the Pilot
Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively traded,
multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in the Pilot
Program (``replacement class''). Any replacement class would be
determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six
months,\5\ and would be added on the second trading day following July
1, 2015 and January 1, 2016. CBOE will employ the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as approved and applicable in
determining the existing classes in the Pilot Program, including
excluding high-priced underlying securities.\6\ CBOE will announce to
its Trading Permit Holders by circular any replacement classes in the
Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for
purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement class to be
added on the second trading day following July 1, 2015 would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from December 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60864 (October 22,
2009), 74 FR 55876 (October 29, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed rule change allows for
an extension of the Pilot Program for the benefit of market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition, the
Exchange has been authorized to act jointly in extending the Pilot
Program and believes the other exchanges will be filing similar
extensions.

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
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\13\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the
Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to continue without
interruption in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's prior
approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will
allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the
impact of the Pilot Program.\15\ Accordingly, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-060 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-060. 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 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-2015-060 and should be
submitted on or before July 21, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15983 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA ICR No. 2195.06	OMB Control No. 2070-0169

                                         Attachment G

               Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0169 Listings of Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

 As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) appear in a listing in 40 CFR 9.1 (58 FR 27472). This listing fulfills the display requirements in section 3507(f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for EPA regulations. The listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control number for the following regulations:

 Program Title
Protections for Test Subjects in Human Research

 40 CFR Citation	OMB Control No.
 26.1125...................................................................................2070-0169
 26.1303...................................................................................2070-0169


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13256-13258]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05009]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0834; FRL-9907-57-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for
Pagosa Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action partially approving and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado.
On March 31, 2010, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to EPA
a revised maintenance plan for the Pagosa Springs area for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10). The State adopted the revised maintenance plan on
November 19, 2009. As required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b),
this revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the
PM10 standard for a second 10-year period beyond the area's
original redesignation to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA
is taking final action approving the revised maintenance plan with the
exception of one aspect of the plan's contingency measures. EPA's
approval includes the revised maintenance plan's 2021 transportation
conformity motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for PM10.
In taking final action to approve the revised maintenance plan, we are
taking final action to exclude from use in determining whether or not
Pagosa Springs continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at
the Pagosa Springs PM10 monitor on March 22, 2009, April 3,
2009, April 5, 2010, April 28, 2010, April 29, 2010, May 11, 2010, and
May 22, 2010 because the exceedances meet the criteria for exceptional
events caused by high wind natural events. This action is being taken
under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0834. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Olson, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The words Colorado and State mean or refer to the State of
Colorado.
    iii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    iv. The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor vehicle emissions
budget.
    v. The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
    vi. The initials NPR mean or refer to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
    vii. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse
particulate matter).
    viii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On December 27, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) in which we proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove the revised Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan
that Colorado submitted to us on March 31, 2010. (See 78 FR 78797.) We
proposed to approve the revised maintenance plan, with the exception of
one of its listed contingency measures, because it demonstrates
maintenance through 2021 as required by CAA section 175A(b), retains
the control measures from the initial PM10 maintenance plan
that EPA approved in June of 2001, and meets other CAA requirements for
a section 175A maintenance plan. We proposed to disapprove ``voluntary
coal and/or wood burning curtailment'' as a potential contingency
measure in section 5.F.3 of the revised Pagosa Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan. While we have not required that potential contingency
measures be effective without further action by the state, we interpret
the CAA as requiring measures

that will be enforceable. Voluntary measures may not be widely
implemented and, thus, cannot be relied on to ensure prompt emission
reductions to correct a violation. We also proposed to exclude from use
in determining whether or not Pagosa Springs continues to attain the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS exceedances of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at the Pagosa Springs
PM10 monitor on March 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, April 5,
2010, April 28, 2010, April 29, 2010, May 11, 2010, and May 22, 2010
because they meet the criteria for exceptional events caused by high
wind natural events. In addition, we proposed to approve the revised
maintenance plan's 2021 transportation conformity MVEB for
PM10 of 946 lbs/day.
    We received no comments regarding our proposed actions and are
finalizing those actions as proposed. For further details regarding the
bases for our actions, please see our NPR at 78 FR 78797 (December 27,
2013).

II. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Pagosa Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan that was submitted to us on March 31, 2010, with one
exception. We are disapproving ``voluntary coal and/or wood burning
curtailment'' as a potential contingency measure in section 5.F.3 of
the revised Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan. We are
approving the remainder of the revised maintenance plan because it
demonstrates maintenance through 2021 as required by CAA section
175A(b), retains the control measures from the initial PM10
maintenance plan that EPA approved on June 15, 2001, and meets other
CAA requirements for a section 175A maintenance plan. We are excluding
from use in determining that Pagosa Springs continues to attain the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS exceedances of the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS that were recorded at the Pagosa Springs PM10 monitor
on March 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, April 5, 2010, April 28, 2010, April
29, 2010, May 11, 2010, and May 22, 2010 because they meet the criteria
for exceptional events caused by high wind natural events. We are also
approving the revised maintenance plan's 2021 transportation conformity
MVEB for PM10 of 946 lbs/day.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted in our NPR, the 2012 PM10 MVEB of 7,486
lbs/day from the original PM10 maintenance plan must
continue to be used for analysis years 2012 through 2020 (as long as
such years are within the timeframe of the transportation plan),
unless the State elects to submit a SIP revision to revise the 2012
PM10 MVEB and EPA approves the SIP revision. 78 FR 78801-
78802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2014 Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.332  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *

    (t) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, Final
Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Pagosa Springs
Attainment/Maintenance Area, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission on November 19, 2009, and submitted by the
Governor's designee on March 31, 2010. The revised maintenance plan
satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 2014-05009 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48202]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-32]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before August 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0751 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Brenda Sexton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0751.
    Petitioner: Airbus SAS.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 26.21.
    Description of Relief Sought: Airbus seeks relief from the
requirement to develop a limit of validity of the engineering data that
supports the structural-maintenance program for Airbus Model A300B2-1A
airplanes, all of which are removed from 14 CFR 121 and 129 operation.

[FR Doc. 2012-19804 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4344-4346]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01191]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33748; 812-15007]

Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds and Blackstone
Alternative Investment Advisors LLC; Notice of Application

January 21, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.

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

Applicants: Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds (``Trust''), a
Massachusetts business trust registered under the Act as an open-end
management investment company with multiple series and Blackstone
Alternative Investment Advisors LLC (``Adviser''), a Delaware limited
liability company registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') that serves an
investment adviser to such series (collectively the ``Applicants'').

Summary of Application: The requested exemption would permit the
Trust's board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
for the Subadvised Series (as defined below), without complying with
the in-person meeting requirement of Section 15(c) of the Act.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 4, 2019, and amended
on March 29, 2019, June 24, 2019, September 25, 2019, and January 10,
2020.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
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 February 18, 2020, 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: James Hannigan, Esq.,
Blackstone Alternative Investment Advisors LLC, 345 Park Avenue, 29th
Floor, New York, NY 10154.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6811, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(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 website by searching for the file number or an Applicant
using the ``Company'' name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

I. Requested Exemptive Relief

    1. Applicants request an exemption from Section 15(c) of the Act to
permit

the Board,\1\ including the Independent Trustees,\2\ to approve an
agreement (each a ``Sub-Advisory Agreement'') pursuant to which a sub-
adviser manages all or a portion of the assets of one or more of the
series, or a material amendment thereof (a ``Sub-Adviser Change''),
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c).\3\ Under the requested relief, the Independent Trustees could
instead approve a Sub-Adviser Change at a meeting at which members of
the Board participate by any means of communication that allows them to
hear each other simultaneously during the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Subadvised Series (as defined below).
    \2\ The term ``Independent Trustees'' means the members of the
Board who are not parties to the Sub-Advisory Agreement (as defined
below), or ``interested persons'', as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of
the Act, of any such party.
    \3\ Applicants do not request relief that would permit the Board
and the Independent Trustees to approve renewals of Sub-Advisory
Agreements at non-in-person meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request that the relief apply to Applicants, as well
as to any future series of the Trust and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that intends to rely on the requested order in the future and that: (i)
Is advised by the Adviser; \4\ (ii) uses the multi-manager structure
described in the application; and (iii) complies with the terms and
conditions of the application (each, a ``Subadvised Series'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Adviser'' includes (i) the Adviser or its
successors, and (ii) any entity controlling, controlled by or under
common control with, the Adviser or its successors. For the purposes
of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity or
entities that result from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization.
    \5\ The term ``Subadvised Series'' also includes a wholly-owned
subsidiary, as defined in the Act, of a Subadvised Series (each a
``Subsidiary'') and the term ``Sub-Adviser'' includes any Sub-
Adviser to a Subsidiary. All registered open-end investment
companies that currently intend to rely on the requested order are
named as applicants. Any entity that relies on the requested order
will do so only in accordance with the terms and conditions
contained in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Management of the Subadvised Series

    3. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to each
Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the
Trust (each an ``Investment Management Agreement''). The Adviser,
subject to the oversight of the Board, will provide continuous
investment management services to each Subadvised Series. Applicants
are not seeking an exemption from the Act with respect to the
Investment Management Agreements.
    4. Applicants state that the Subadvised Series may seek to provide
exposure to multiple strategies across various asset classes, thus
allowing investors to more easily access such strategies without the
additional transaction costs and administrative burdens of investing in
multiple funds to seek to achieve comparable exposures.
    5. To that end, the Adviser may achieve its desired exposures to
specific strategies by allocating discrete portions of the Subadvised
Series' assets to various sub-advisers. Consistent with the terms of
each Investment Management Agreement and subject to the Board's
approval,\6\ the Adviser would delegate management of all or a portion
of the assets of a Subadvised Series to a sub-adviser.\7\ Each sub-
adviser would be an ``investment adviser'' to the Subadvised Series
within the meaning of Section 2(a)(20) of the Act.\8\ The Adviser would
retain overall responsibility for the management and investment of the
assets of each Subadvised Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Sub-Advisory Agreement may also be subject to approval by
a Subadvised Series' shareholders. Applicants currently rely on a
multi-manager exemptive order to enter into and materially amend
Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. See
Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds, et al., Investment Company
Act Release Nos. 32481 (Feb. 16, 2017) (notice) and 32530 (Mar. 13,
2017) (order).
    \7\ A sub-adviser may manage the assets of a Subadvised Series
directly or provide the Adviser with model portfolio or investment
recommendation(s) that would be utilized in connection with the
management of a Subadvised Series.
    \8\ Each sub-adviser would be registered with the Commission as
an investment adviser under the Advisers Act or not subject to such
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Applicable Law

    6. Section 15(c) of the Act prohibits a registered investment
company having a board from entering into, renewing or performing any
contract or agreement whereby a person undertakes regularly to act as
an investment adviser (including a sub-adviser) to the investment
company, unless the terms of such contract or agreement and any renewal
thereof have been approved by the vote of a majority of the investment
company's board members who are not parties to such contract or
agreement, or interested persons of any such party, cast in person at a
meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval.
    7. Section 6(c) 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 provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, 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.
Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the
reasons discussed below.

IV. Arguments in Support of the Requested Relief

    8. Applicants assert that boards of registered investment
companies, including the Board, typically hold in-person meetings on a
quarterly basis. Applicants state that during the three to four month
period between board meeting dates, market conditions may change or
investment opportunities may arise such that the Adviser may wish to
make a Sub-Adviser Change. Applicants also state that at these moments
it may be impractical and costly to hold an additional in-person Board
meeting, especially given the geographic diversity of Board members and
the additional cost of holding in-person meetings.
    9. As a result, Applicants believe that the requested relief would
allow the Subadvised Series to operate more efficiently. In particular,
Applicants assert that without the delay inherent in holding in-person
Board meetings (and the attendant difficulty of obtaining the necessary
quorum for, and the additional costs of, an unscheduled in-person Board
meeting), the Subadvised Series would be able to act quicker and with
less expense to add or replace sub-advisers when the Board and the
Adviser believe that a Sub-Adviser Change would benefit the Subadvised
Series.
    10. Applicants also note that the in-person meeting requirement in
Section 15(c) of the Act was designed to prohibit absentee approval of
advisory agreements. Applicants state that condition 1 to the requested
relief is designed to avoid such absentee approval by requiring that
the Board approve a Sub-adviser Change at a meeting where all
participating Board members can hear each other and be heard by each
other during the meeting.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Applicants state that technology that includes visual
capabilities will be used unless unanticipated circumstances arise.
Applicants also state that the Board could not rely upon the relief
to approve a Sub-Advisory Agreement by written consent or another
form of absentee approval by the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Applicants, moreover, represent that the Board would conduct
any such non-in-person consideration of a Sub-

Advisory Agreement in accordance with its typical process for approving
Sub-Advisory Agreements. Consistent with Section 15(c) of the Act, the
Board would request and evaluate such information as may reasonably be
necessary to evaluate the terms of any Sub-Advisory Agreement, and the
Adviser and sub-adviser would provide such information.
    12. Finally, Applicants note that that if one or more Board members
request that a Sub-Adviser Change be considered in-person, then the
Board would not be able to rely on the relief and would have to
consider the Sub-Adviser Change at an in-person meeting.
    13. The Commission continues to believe that a board's decision-
making process may benefit from the directors' having the opportunity
to interact in person, as a group and individually. We recognize,
however, that under the circumstances described by Applicants, the need
to act promptly for the benefit of the Fund may justify the Board's
meeting on a non-in-person basis, and that technological advances
enable directors to hold such meetings in a manner where the directors
can be personally present and able to assure themselves that they are
informed as to the matter that requires action by the Board.
Accordingly, the requested relief would meet the applicable standard
for relief under the Act.

V. Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Independent Trustees will approve a Sub-Adviser Change at a
non-in-person meeting in which Board members may participate by any
means of communication that allows those Board members participating to
hear each other simultaneously during the meeting.
    2. Management will represent that the materials provided to the
Board for the non-in-person meeting include the same information the
Board would have received if a Sub-Adviser Change were sought at an in-
person Board meeting.
    3. The notice of the non-in-person meeting will explain the need
for considering the Sub-Adviser Change at a non-in-person meeting. Once
notice of the non-in-person meeting to consider a Sub-Adviser Change is
sent, Board members will be given the opportunity to object to
considering the Sub-Adviser Change at a non-in-person Board meeting. If
a Board member requests that the Sub-Adviser Change be considered in-
person, the Board will consider the Sub-Adviser Change at an in-person
meeting, unless such request is rescinded.
    4. A Subadvised Series' ability to rely on the requested relief
will be disclosed in the Subadvised Series' registration statement.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01191 Filed 1-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46827-46828]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0728]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of
revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0018,
Official Logbook. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 3,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0728] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND STREET, SW, STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate

comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the
Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we
may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the
Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2011-0728], and
must be received by October 3, 2011. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0728], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment
online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0728''
in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0728'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF 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., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Official Logbook.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0018.
    Summary: The Official Logbook contains information about the
voyage, the vessel's crew, drills, watches, and operations conducted
during the voyage. Official Logbook entries identify particulars of the
voyage, including the name of the ship, official number, port of
registry, tonnage, names and merchant mariner credential numbers of the
master and crew, the nature of the voyage, and class of ship. In
addition, it also contains entries for the vessel's drafts, maintenance
of watertight integrity of the ship, drills and inspections, crew list
and report of character, a summary of laws applicable to Official
Logbooks, and miscellaneous entries.
    NEED: Title 46, United States Code (U.S.C.) 11301, 11302, 11303,
and 11304 require applicable merchant vessels to maintain an Official
Logbook. The Official Logbook contains information about the vessel,
voyage, crew, and watch. Lack of these particulars would make it
difficult for a seaman to verify vessel employment and wages, and for
the Coast Guard to verify compliance with laws and regulations
concerning vessel operations and safety procedures. The Official
Logbook serves as an official record of recordable events transpiring
at sea such as births, deaths, marriages, disciplinary actions, etc.
Absent the Official Logbook, there would be no official civil record of
these events. The courts accept log entries as proof that the logged
event occurred. If this information was not collected, the Coast
Guard's commercial vessel safety program would be negatively impacted,
as there would be no official record of U.S. merchant vessel voyages.
Similarly, those seeking to prove that an event required to be logged
occurred would not have an official record available.
    Forms: CG-706B.
    Respondents: Federal agency maritime casualty investigators, Coast
guard inspectors, and shipping companies.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 1,750 hours a year.

    Dated: July 28, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-19608 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING Code 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6987-6988]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0086; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Brooksville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brooksville-Tampa
Bay Regional Airport, (previously Hernando County Airport),
Brooksville, FL, by recognizing the airport's name change and updating
the airport's geographic coordinates. Also, Class E surface airspace
would be removed as it is no longer necessary. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would replace the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement
in the legal descriptions of associated Class D airspace of this
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Bldg. Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-
647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2019-
0086; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-1, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit and review received comments through the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority, as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E surface
airspace at Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, (previously
Hernando County Airport), Brooksville, FL, to support standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2019-0086 and Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2019-0086; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-1.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket. All communications received on or before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will
be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective

September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by recognizing the
airport's name change to Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport,
(formerly Hernando County Airport), and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database. Also, Class E surface airspace would be removed, providing
the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
Additionally, an editorial change would be made replacing the outdated
term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the
associated Class D airspace legal description of this airport.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August
13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Brooksville, FL [Amended]

Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]28'25'' N, long. 82[deg]27'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and
including 1,500 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of the
Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area
is effective during specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL E2 Brooksville, FL [Remove]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Brooksville, FL [Amended]

Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]28'25'' N, long. 82[deg]27'20'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.6-mile radius of Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 21, 2019.
Geoff Lelliott,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2019-03614 Filed 2-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37825-37828]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15475]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72482; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Strike Settings for Mini-S&P 500 Index
Options

June 26, 2014.
    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 June 25, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 Interpretation and Policy .11 to
Rule 24.9 (Terms of Index Options Contracts) by modifying the strike
setting regime for Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP'') options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .11 to
Rule 24.9 (``Interpretation and Policy .11'') by modifying the strike
setting regime for Mini-S&P 500 Index (``XSP'') options. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to more closely align: (1) The permitted
strike prices in XSP options with scaled corresponding strikes in full
value S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options; and (2) the exercise price range
limitations for XSP options with the exercise price range limitations
for equity and exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options. Through this
filing, the Exchange hopes to make XSP options easier for investors to
use and more tailored to their investment needs.
    Over two decades ago, CBOE introduced XSP options in order to allow
smaller-scale investors to gain broad exposure to the SPX options
market and hedge S&P 500 Index cash positions.\3\ XSP options are
reduced value options that are equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P
500 Index and have a multiplier of $100. For example, if the S&P 500
Index is at 1932.56, the XSP Index would have a value of 193.26 and the
notional value of an XSP option would be $19,326. As the Commission
noted in the XSP option Approval Order,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September 14,
1993), 58 FR 49070 (September 21, 1993) (Order approving listing of
reduced-value options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index) (SR-
CBOE-93-12).

reduced-value SPX options may benefit investors by providing them
with a relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios. The
Commission also believes that the lower cost of the reduced-value
SPX options should allow investors to hedge their portfolios with a
smaller outlay of capital and may facilitate participation in the
market for SPX options, which should, in turn, help to maintain the
depth and liquidity of the market for SPX options, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 58 FR at 49071.

As the Commission anticipated, XSP options provide retail investors
with the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized
contract.

    Under current Interpretation and Policy .11 ``the interval between
strike prices of series of Mini-SPX options will be $1 or greater where
the strike price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike
price is greater than $200.'' \5\ Currently, the XSP Index is hovering
close to 200, reflecting levels near 2000 in the S&P 500 Index. As a
result, the Exchange has received customer requests to add strike
prices in XSP options that exceed $200. Specifically, customers have
requested strike prices in the XSP options scaled to match strike
prices in the SPX options. Under existing Interpretation and Policy
.11, the Exchange is unable to list some of the requested strikes. For
example, currently, SPX options have strike prices that include 2010,
2020 and 2030. In order to list corresponding scaled strikes in XSP
options, CBOE would need the ability to list the following strikes:
201, 202 and 203. The listing of strikes in those increments, however,
is not permitted under current Interpretation and Policy .11. Rather,
the Exchange currently only has the ability to list a 200 strike price
and a 205 strike price in XSP options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 24.9.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, exercise prices for XSP options must be within 30% of
the current XSP value.\6\ Exercise prices more than 30% away from the
current XSP level are permitted provided there is demonstrated customer
interest for such exercise prices. Through this filing, the Exchange is
proposing to align the exercise price range limitations for XSP options
with the exercise price range limitations for equity and ETF
options.\7\ The following example illustrates the different exercise
price range limitations between XSP options and equity and ETF options.
If the underlying price of an equity or ETF option is $200, the
Exchange would be permitted to list strikes ranging from $100 through
$300. If the underlying level of the XSP is 200, the Exchange would
only be permitted to list strikes ranging from $140 to $260. To put XSP
options on equal standing with equity and ETF options in terms of
exercise price range limitations, the Exchange proposes to replace the
30%  current index level strike setting band for XSP
options with the strike setting band that currently exists for equity
and ETF options. The Exchange believes that the existing strike setting
regime for XSP options is unnecessarily restrictive and thus, proposes
to establish a new strike setting regime for XSP options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 24.9.04 generally provides that exercise prices for
index options must be within 30% of the current index value.
Exercise prices more than 30% away from the current index level are
permitted provided there is demonstrated customer interest for such
exercise prices.
    \7\ Rule 5.5A (Select Provisions of Options Listing Procedures
Plan) sets forth the exercise price range limitations for equity and
ETF options, which are identical to those being proposed for XSP
options in the current filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to more closely align strike prices between reduced value
XSP options and full value SPX options and to align the exercise price
range limitations for XSP options with the existing price range
limitations for equity and ETF options, CBOE proposes to amend
Interpretation and Policy .11 as follows:
     If the current value of the Mini-SPX is less than or equal
to 20, the Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price of
more than 100% above or below the current value of the Mini-SPX; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange is proposing to exclude XSP options from the
provisions of Rules 24.9.01(a), 24.01(d) and 24.9.04. Rule
24.9.01(a) identifies those indexes for which the minimum strike
price interval is $2.50. Rules 24.9.01(d) and 24.9.04 set forth 30%
ranges for setting strike prices based on the current index level,
which are in conflict with the percentages proposed in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the current value of the Mini-SPX is greater than 20,
the Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price of more than
50% above or below the current value of the Mini-SPX; and
     The lowest strike price interval that may be listed for
Mini-SPX options is $1, including for LEAPS.
    The Exchange believes that the above strike price setting regime
would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect the current
values in the underlying S&P 500 Index would provide flexibility and
allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for XSP options
strike prices that better relate to current S&P 500 Index values. In
addition, the Exchange believes that because the number of strikes that
may be listed would be contained by the percentages above and below the
current XSP Index value, there is no need to artificially restrict the
use of $1 strike price intervals based on the exercise price. Rather,
the Exchange may determine to list strikes in $1 intervals or higher
based on the level of the XSP Index, customer demand and the need to
list scaled strikes in reduced value XSP options that correspond to
strikes in full value SPX options. Also, the Exchange believes that
there is no reason to have a more limited range of strikes for XSP
options than is currently permitted for equity or ETF options.
    The Exchange recognizes that the proposed approach does not achieve
full harmonization between strikes in XSP options and SPX options. For
example, if there is a 2015 strike in SPX options, CBOE is not seeking
the ability to list a 201.50 strike in XSP options. CBOE believes that
having the ability to list the 201 and 202 strikes in XSP options would
provide the marketplace with a sufficient number of strike prices over
a range of XSP Index values.\9\ The Exchange believes that these
changes would allow retail investors to better use XSP options to gain
exposure to the SPX options market and hedge S&P 500 cash positions in
the event that the S&P 500 Index surpasses 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the future, the Exchange may request via a rule filing to
have even finer strike price increments for XSP options and nothing
herein is meant to imply or preclude the Exchange from doing so in
the future if the need arises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of
large cap U.S. equities. As a result, individual investors often use
S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and
benefit from market trends. Full size SPX options offer these benefits
to investors, but may be expensive with a notional value that exceeds
$190,000 per contract and are primarily used by institutional market
participants. By contrast, reduced value XSP options offer individual
investors the ability to benefit from S&P 500 Index options at much
lower cost.
    The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it
believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have
the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic
associated with proposed revised strike setting regime for XSP options.
Because the rule change proposes to continue to only list strikes
within a certain band relative to current S&P 500 Index levels, the
number of listed strikes would remain contained. In addition, the
proposal is limited to a single option class (XSP).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change would add consistency to
the S&P 500 Index options markets and allow investors to more easily
use XSP options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow small
investors to better hedge positions in the S&P 500 Index cash market
with XSP options and ensure that XSP options investors are not at a
disadvantage with respect to larger institutional investors in the SPX
options.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ which provides that the Exchange
be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's Trading Permit
Holders and persons associated with its Trading Permit Holders with the
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would
create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality. The
rule change proposes to allow the Exchange to respond to customer
demand by listing strike prices in the XSP options scaled to match
strike prices in the SPX options. The number of XSP strikes that may be
listed, however, would not be unbounded. This would be accomplished by
limiting the interval between strike prices of series of XSP options to
$1 or greater when the strike price is greater than 20 and by
prohibiting the Exchange from listing series with an exercise price of
more than 50% above or below the current value of the XSP (which is
identical to what is currently permitted for equity and ETF options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would relieve any burden on, or
otherwise promote, competition in the S&P 500 Index-related markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would bolster
intramarket competition by affording individual investors in XSP
options investment opportunities that are similar to those that are
available to investors in SPX options. In addition, the proposed rule
change would allow investors in XSP options to better hedge positions
in the S&P 500 Index cash market in a manner similar to larger
investors in the SPX options market. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change would make XSP options easier for investors to
use because the options would more accurately reflect positions in the
underlying cash market. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would contribute to intramarket competition and a
more robust marketplace. Notably, all market participants would have
the same access to XSP options and would be able to use XSP options
products to appropriately suit their investment needs.

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
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will allow
the Exchange to respond to current customer demand for strike prices in
XSP options that are scaled to match existing strikes prices in SPX
options. For this reason, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-051. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 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-2014-051 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15475 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P