[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29427-29429]
[DOCID:fr26my10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1132]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; AVI May Fireworks Display, Laughlin, NV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone, on the
navigable waters of the lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support
of a fireworks display near the AVI Resort and Casino. This safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on May 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-1132 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1132 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Corey McDonald, Waterways
Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 2, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; AVI May Fireworks Display; Laughlin,
Nevada, NV in the Federal Register (75 FR 9370). We received 0 comments
on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was
held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels
involved in the event, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

Basis and Purpose

    The AVI Resort and Casino is sponsoring the AVI May fireworks
display, which is to be held at the AVI Resort and Casino on the Lower
Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada. A temporary safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the show's crew, spectators,
participants of the event, participating vessels, and other vessels and
users of the waterway.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    There were no comments submitted and no changes were made to the
regulation.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV in support
of the AVI May fireworks display adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino
on the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The safety zone will be
effective from 8 p.m. to 9:45 a.m. on May 30, 2010. The safety zone is
set as an 800 foot radius around the firing site in approximate
position: 35[deg]00.45' N, 114[deg]38.18' W.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the size
and location of the safety zone. While vessels will not be allowed to
transit through the designated safety

zone during the specified times, the zone exists for only a short
period of time and will be enforced only during a period where vessel
traffic is light.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River from 8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.
on May 30, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
safety zone will only be in effect for one hour and 45 minutes late in
the evening when vessel traffic is low. Before the effective period, we
will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-284 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-284;  Safety Zone; AVI May Fireworks Display, Laughlin,
Nevada, NV.

    (a) Location. The limits of the proposed safety zone are as
follows: will include all navigable waters within 800 feet of the
firing location adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino centered in the
channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of AVI Resort
and Casino Cove in position: 35[deg]00'93'' N, 114[deg]38'28'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 9:45 p.m. on May 30, 2010. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: May 8, 2010.
T. H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-12697 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector
Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-123, HCFC-22, and R-500 in Centrifugal, Reciprocating, Screw, and Scroll Chillers
                           Substitute: HFO-1234ze(E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.
1. 	INTRODUCTION
Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past two decades, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, administers the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, which identifies acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end-uses based on assessment of their health and environmental impacts.
EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications.  EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many end-uses within all of the major ODS-using sectors, including refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.
The purpose of this risk screen is to supplement EPA's Background Document on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). This risk screen evaluates the potential use of HBA-2 as a substitute for CFC-12 in new centrifugal and positive displacement (e.g., screw, scroll, and reciprocating) chillers. Table 1 presents information on the proposed substitute.

                Table 1. Chemical Information of HFO-1234ze(E)
                              Proposed Substitute
                                 Chemical Name
                               Chemical Formula
                                  CAS Number
                                 HFO-1234ze(E)
                      trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene
                                    C3F4H2
                                   1645-83-6

The potential risks associated with use of substitutes in chillers have been examined at length in the Background Document.  The reader is referred to this reference for a detailed discussion of the methodologies used to conduct this risk screen.  This risk screen addresses flammability risk, and an occupational exposure assessment was performed to ensure that manufacture, installation, servicing, and disposal of the proposed substitute in the chiller end-use does not pose unacceptable risks to workers.  Lastly, general population exposure modeling was performed to ensure that the proposed substitute would not pose an unacceptable risk to the population at large.
Section 2 summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute listed in Table 1.  The remainder of the report is organized into the following sections:

         * Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment
         * Section 4: Flammability Assessment
         * Section 5: Potential Health Effects
         * Section 6: Occupational Exposure Assessment
         * Section 7: General Population Exposure Assessment
         * Section 8: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment
         * Section 9: References

2.	 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
HFO-1234ze(E) is recommended for SNAP approval for the centrifugal chiller and reciprocating, screw and scroll chiller end-uses. EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-123, HCFC-22, and R-500.  Given that appropriate safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) (OSHA Category C or higher) and engineering controls (e.g., exhaust ventilation, vapor-in-air detection systems) will be used during installation, maintenance, and disposal activities, no significant toxicity risks to workers or the general population are expected. In addition, based on the proper precautions listed in the MSDS for HFO-1234ze(E), the proposed substitute is not expected to present a significant flammability concern during manufacture or end-use (see Section 4).
3. 	ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT
This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of HFO-1234ze(E) in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector.  The ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 2. As compared to CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-123, HCFC-22, and R-500, HFO-1234ze(E) is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer, has less climate impact, and a shorter atmospheric lifetime. In addition, HFO-1234ze(E) also has lower climate impact and a shorter atmospheric lifetime than those predicted for other substitutes examined in the Background Document, as well as a more recent substitute, HFC-236fa. Thus, EPA believes that use of HFO-1234ze(E) would result in substantially less harm to the climate and ozone layer than the continued use of ODS.

Table 2. Atmospheric Impacts of HFO-1234ze(E) Compared to Other Chiller Refrigerants
                                  Refrigerant
                                      ODP
                                      GWP
                                     ALT
                                 HFO-1234ze(E)
                                     0[a]
                                     6[a]
                                 0.04 years[b]
                                    CFC-11
                                    1.0[c]
                                   4,750[d]
                                  45 years[d]
                                    CFC-12
                                    1.0[c]
                                   10,900[d]
                                 100 years[d]
                                   HCFC-123
                                    0.01[c]
                                     77[d]
                                 1.3 years[d]
                                    HCFC-22
                                    0.04[c]
                                   1,810[d]
                                     12[d]
                                   R-500[e]
                                    0.7[c]
                                   8,077[d]
                                      NA
                                   HFC-236fa
                                       0
                                   9,810[d]
                                    240[d]
a HFO-1234ze(E) SNAP Submission (Honeywell 2008).
b Submitter indicates that substitute's ALT is approximately 14 days (Honeywell 2008).
[c] WMO (2011)
d IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007)
[e] R-500 is a blend consisting of CFC-12 (73.8%) and HFC-152a (26.2%).
NA= not available. Atmospheric lifetimes are not given for blends because the components separate in the atmosphere. The ALT for CFC-12 is 100 years and HFC-152a is 1.4 years (IPCC 4th Assessment Report [Forster et al. 2007]).
4.	FLAMMABILITY ASSESSMENT
HFO-1234ze(E) is not flammable at ambient temperatures of 21°C (70°F), but is flammable at higher temperatures and can ignite when mixed with air under pressure and exposed to strong ignition sources. At 60°C (140°F), HFO-1234ze(E) is flammable when its concentration in air is in the range of 5.7% and 11.3% by volume (57,000 ppm to 113,000 ppm). However, HFO-1234ze(E) is difficult to ignite, requiring a minimum energy of ignition of 61,000 mJ at 54°C (129°F) and standard pressure.

By keeping HFO-1234ze(E) away from all sources of ignition and high heat and adhering to the other  precautions listed in the proposed substitute's MSDS, HFO-1234ze(E) does not pose a significant flammability risk.
5.	POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
To assess potential health risks from exposure to this proposed substitute, the AIHA (American Industrial Hygiene Association) WEEL (Workplace Environmental Exposure Level) Committee developed an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The AEL represents the maximum 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) at which a worker can be exposed regularly without adverse effects.  EPA also developed a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2,400 ppm over a 15-minute period, based on the Association's 800 ppm AEL value.

According to the MSDS, exposure to HFO-1234ze(E) may be harmful by ocular or dermal absorption or inhalation; ingestion is not expected as the proposed substance is a gas. Exposures of HFO-1234ze(E) to the eyes may cause eye irritation and may cause frostbite. In case of ocular exposure, the MSDS for HFO-1234ze(E) recommends that person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with water for 15 minutes; should frostbite occur, the water should be lukewarm, not hot. Medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists. Exposures of HFO-1234ze(E) to the skin are not expected to cause irritation, but may cause frostbite in the event of rapid evaporation of the liquid. In the case of frostbite, the MSDS for HFO-1234ze(E) recommends that person(s) should bathe (not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, not hot, water. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean, soft cloth. Medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists. HFO-1234ze(E) vapors are heavier than air and can cause suffocation by reducing oxygen available for breathing, causing asphyxiation at high concentrations.  If person(s) are exposed to high concentrations, the person(s) will likely not realize that he/she is suffocating, but may experience central nervous system effects, such as drowsiness and dizziness. If HFO-1234ze(E) is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately removed and exposed to fresh air. The MSDS recommends that if breathing is difficult, person(s) should be given oxygen, provided a qualified operator is present, and medical attention be sought.  EPA's review of the human health impacts of this proposed substitute is contained in the public docket for this decision.

The potential health effects of HFO-1234ze(E) are unlikely to occur when following the exposure guidelines and the ventilation and PPE recommendations outlined in the MSDS for HFO-1234ze(E) and this risk screen.
6.  	OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
To ensure that use of the proposed substitute in chillers does not pose an unacceptable risk to workers during installation, servicing, and disposal, occupational exposure modeling at installation was performed for the proposed substitute.  Although modeling is only performed for installation, it is assumed that exposure during servicing and disposal would not exceed exposure during installation. All installation, maintenance, and disposal activities for HFO-1234ze(E) chillers are anticipated to occur on-site. Servicing of the chiller is assumed to not exceed exposures during installation and disposal. Installation and disposal are anticipated to have similar exposures, since both require the connection of pipes to transfer the refrigerant; as it is likely that less refrigerant remains in the unit at disposal, it is assumed that installation of a chiller would require transfer of a greater amount of refrigerant, and thus result in greater worker exposure. Thus, occupational exposure was conservatively modeled based on installation.

Installation of chillers is expected to occur with limited frequency (up to approximately one event per day) and with limited duration of exposure to the refrigerant charge. Potential exposures to the refrigerant are expected to occur during activities related to charging the refrigerant from the storage tanks into the chiller (e.g., connecting of pipes). Such activities and related exposure is anticipated to occur within 15-30 minutes (per event/day). To evaluate the risk of exposure at installation, the maximum modeled exposure concentration was compared to 2,400 ppm, the HFO-1234ze(E) STEL developed by EPA based on AIHA's 800 ppm AEL value.

The methodology used for this screening assessment is described in Chapter 5 of the Background Document. A box-model approach was used to evaluate potential worker exposure to alternative refrigerants. This approach has been widely used for many years to estimate probable exposures of workers to hazardous airborne materials, and has been described in detail by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  This model takes into consideration the duration and magnitude of the resulting exposure which is influenced by 1) duration and intensity of the release, 2) rate at which contaminated air is diluted with uncontaminated air, 3) proximity of the worker to the source of the release, and 4) the length of time the worker remains in the affected space.

The release per event was conservatively assumed to be 1 percent of the equipment charge during installation and then was multiplied by the number of installations estimated to occur over a workday.  One installation per workday was assumed based on data obtained from the Vintaging Model. The analysis models two refrigerant charge sizes: a typical maximum refrigerant charge size, and an atypical maximum charge size.

Based on the assumptions described above, the modeling indicates that short-term (15-minute) worker exposure concentrations could reach 3,080 ppm during installation of the atypical maximum charge size chiller, and 1,160 ppm during installation of the typical maximum charge size chiller. Although the modeled exposure concentration for installation of the larger chiller is greater than the STEL (2,400 ppm),that charge size is representative of a very large and uncommon size for chillers, for which additional precautions would be taken. As indicated by the submitter, industry field experience has shown that vapor-in-air concentrations for HCFC-123 to be less than 50 ppm in all installations, and typically less than 0.6 ppm during routine maintenance and refrigerant transfers.  Further, the modeled exposure concentration for installation of a chiller containing the typical maximum charge size did not exceed the STEL.

Chillers are typically installed, maintained, and disposed by trained personnel using proper industrial hygiene techniques. When installing, servicing, or disposing of large chillers, these techniques should be strictly followed.  Adherence to the proposed substitute's MSDS and use of proper engineering controls and PPE make it unlikely that exposure to HFO-1234ze(E) would occur. Adequate ventilation should always be established during any use, handling, or storage of HFO-1234ze(E). Engineering controls should include vapor-in-air detection systems and local exhaust ventilation during use of HFO-1234ze(E); filling operations are to occur only at stations with exhaust ventilation facilities. In addition, an eye wash and safety shower should be near the manufacturing facility and ready for use. In general, use of OSHA Category C or higher PPE is recommended, such as respiratory protection (a NIOSH-approved positive-pressure supplied-air respirator is recommended where there is insufficient ventilation), chemical splash goggles or face shield, impervious gloves, and chemical-resistant boots and clothing (OSHA 1994). Because use of exposure controls and adherence to the appropriate occupational safety guidelines would be followed under good manufacturing practices, as mentioned above, EPA believes that HFO-1234ze(E) does not pose a significant risk to workers during installation, maintenance, and disposal activities.

In addition, there is a risk of generation of toxic decomposition products such as hydrogen fluoride and fluorocarbons, if HFO-1234ze(E) is exposed to fire. Containers of HFO-1234ze(E) should not be exposed to sunlight or temperatures exceeding 50°C. EPA believes that when the proper handling and disposal guidelines are followed in accordance with good industrial hygiene and manufacturing practices and the MSDS for HFO-1234ze(E), there is no significant risk to workers during the installation, servicing, or disposal of HFO-1234ze(E).

7. 	GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
HFO-1234ze(E) is not expected to cause a significant impact on human health in the general population when used as a refrigerant in chillers. The compound is proposed for use in closed systems that are typically operated near atmospheric pressure. General population exposures to ambient air and surface water releases are not expected from this end use.
8. 	VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ASSESSMENT
HFO-1234ze(E) is exempt from the definition of a volatile organic compound (VOC) under CAA regulations (40 CFR §51.100(s)).  Therefore, environmental impacts from the release of HFO-1234ze(E) as a VOC are not a concern.

9.  	REFERENCES
Honeywell, Inc. 2008. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for HFO-1234ze(E). July 2008.
Honeywell, Inc. 2011. Chiller Risk Assessment for HFO-1234ze(E) Use in Chillers. August 1, 2011.
Honeywell, Inc. 2012a. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for HFO-1234ze(E) Use in Chillers. March 1, 2012.
Honeywell, Inc. 2012b. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for HFO-1234ze(E) Use in Chillers. May 8, 2012.
EPA 2011. National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. Accessed 23 December 2011. Updated October 2011. Available at: <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html#tables>
EPA 1994.  Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document:  Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.  Stratospheric Protection Division.  March, 1994.

EIA 2011. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035. Independent Statistics & Analysis Table Browser. Accessed September 2011. Available online at <http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/>.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
ICF International.  2009a.  Revised Final Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.  Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  August 4, 2009.
 ICF International.  2009b.  Atmospheric Oxidation of HFO-1234ze.  Prepared by Dr. Don Wuebbles for ICF International.  Deliverable under EPA Contract EP-W-06-008, TO 038, Task 5.  September 2009

OSHA. 1994. General description and discussion of the levels of protection and protective gear. 1910.120 App B. Last updated August 22, 1994. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9767

                                 Appendix A:
                  Determination of an AEL for HFO-1234ze(E)
                         (Occupational Exposure Limit)

Recommended AEL: 		1000 ppm (8-hour Time Weighted Average)

Basis and
Endpoints: 	Hematology and clinical chemistry changes, mononuclear infiltration of heart tissue

Study: 	Sub-chronic (13-week) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-1234ze(E) in rats (Muijser 2008)

Protocol:	Nose-only inhalation, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13 weeks

Concentrations:			0; 1,500; 5,000 and 15,000 ppm

NOAEC:			5,000 ppm

LOAEC:			15,000 ppm

[HEC]: 				3750 (5000 x 6/8)

Uncertainty Factors:	3 (interspecies extrapolation)

HFO-1234ze(E) is a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant/heat transfer solvent that is structurally similar to HFO-1234yf.  The database of toxicity studies for both compounds is very thorough and includes genotoxicity assays (bacterial reversion assay, in vitro chromosomal aberration study and an in vivo unscheduled DNA synthesis assay and micronucleus assay in mice); acute (4-hour), 28-day, and 14-week inhalation toxicity studies in rats of both sexes; an acute cardiac sensitization study in male beagle dogs; a developmental study in rabbits; ecotoxicity studies; and a toxicogenomic study.

Due to additional data available on developmental toxicity, we are able to use a lower uncertainty factor and are now recommending a higher AEL compared to our preliminary AEL analysis (where an AEL of 375 ppm was recommended). This AEL is developed based on the findings in the 90-day study inhalation toxicity study in rats (Muijser 2008).  In this subchronic study, 10 each male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed nose-only to HFO-1234ze(E) at concentrations of 1,500, 5,000, and 15,000 ppm for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 91-92 days.  Exposure to the test compound did not have any effect on the following measured parameters:  mortality, clinical signs, ophthalmoscopy, body weights, food consumption, food conversion efficiency, organ weights, or gross pathology.  Decreased absolute and relative uterus weight in females at 15,000 ppm was considered to be the result of estrus cycle and not related to treatment.

Some changes in hematology and clinical chemistry parameters were noted in rats exposed to 15,000 ppm HFO-1234ze(E) that might be related to compound exposure.  These are the following:  increase in thrombocytes and monocytes in males and an increase in hemoglobin, packed cell volume, and monocytes in females; an increase in ASAT and urea in plasma of males, and an increase in glucose, urea, inorganic phosphate, and potassium in females.  Histopathology was unaffected in most organs.  As no microscopic effects were noted in the liver tissue, the clinical chemistry changes in males and females were not considered clinically relevant.  Exposure at the highest concentration resulted in predominantly slight multifocal mononuclear cell infiltrates in the hearts of rats of both sexes (in the absence of fibrosis; see Table 1 below).  Based on this result, the NOAEC was identified as 5,000 ppm.

Table 1.  Incidences of Heart Histopathology in Male and Female Rats Exposed to HFO-1234ze(E) for 13 Weeks

                                 Males# (ppm)
                                 Females (ppm)
Heart Histopathology Multifocal mononuclear cell infiltrate (grade)
                                       0
                                     1500
                                     5000
                                    15,000
                                       0
                                      500
                                     5000
                                    15,000
                                                                    Very slight
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                                                         Slight
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       7
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       4
                                                                       Moderate
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                                                Expanded Totals
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      9**
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                      5*
Data taken from Muijser 2008; pg 77.
#Animals evaluated per concentration group: 10
*, Statistically significant at p<0.05; **, p<0.001

Other toxicity studies were negative, increasing our overall confidence in the developed AEL.  For example, the results of the cardiac sensitization assay in male beagle dogs indicates that 1234ze does not cause cardiac sensitization at concentrations up to 120,000 ppm (Weinberg 2004). In a range-finding developmental study in New Zealand white rabbits (via whole-body inhalation), exposures up to 15,000 ppm during organogenesis (gestational day 6-28) did not cause any maternal or developmental toxicity (Fleeman 2008).  In addition, all in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies were negative, indicating that the compound is not genotoxic.

References

Fleeman TL. 2008.  An inhalation range-finding prenatal developmental toxicity study of HFO-1234ze (1,1,1,3-tetrafluoropropene) in rabbits.  WIL Research Laboratories.  30 January 2008.
Muijser H.  2008.  Sub-chronic (13-week) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-1234ze in rats.  TNO Laboratories.  28 March 2008.
Muijser H and K Junker.  2006. Sub-acute (4-week) inhalation toxicity study, including Unscheduled DNA Syntesis and Micronucleus test, with HFP-1234ze in rats.  TNO Laboratories.  11 December 2006.
Weinberg JT. 2004.  Acute cardiac sensitization of HFO 1234ze and HFO 1234yf in dogs.  WIL Research Laboratories.  23 August 2006.

                                 Appendix B:
                      Atmospheric Oxidation of HFO-1234ze
HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene) has been proposed as a replacement for the ozone-depleting substance (ODS) CFC-12 and for HFC-134a in vehicle air conditioning systems, but analyses (e.g., Luecken et al., 2009) suggest that, while its 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) is quite low, atmospheric oxidation will mostly produce TFA (trifluoroacetic acid, CF3C(O)OH). TFA is of concern because it is a strong organic acid that has local air quality impacts and can accumulate in waterways and aquatic ecosystems where it is potentially hazardous to various lifeforms.
An isomer of HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze (1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene), is also proposed for use as an ODS replacement (specifically, in the foam blowing, aerosols and heat transfer end-uses). This memorandum examines the most likely tropospheric oxidation pathways for HFO-1234ze, particularly to evaluate its potential for production of TFA.
The most likely route for atmospheric oxidation of either cis- or trans- isomers of HFO-1234ze starts with OH addition to the C=C double bond. In the absence of measurements, we are uncertain whether OH addition to either carbon atom will be preferred. Such OH adducts then add O2 in a three-body reaction, yielding the peroxy radicals HOCHFCH(O2)CF3 and O2CHFCH(OH)CF3 as shown by reactions (1) and (5) below. Each peroxy radical is converted by NO reaction to an alkoxy radical (reactions (2) and (6)) that then fragments according to reactions (3) and (7). OH addition to the 1-carbon of HFO-1234ze results in trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF3CHO) plus a radical fragment which reacts with O2 to yield formyl fluoride (CHFO) in reaction (4), and OH addition to the 2-carbon produces CHFO plus a radical fragment which reacts with O2 to yield CF3CHO in reaction (8). Thus, the first result of HFO-1234ze oxidation is expected to be CHFO + CF3CHO.
CHF=CHCF3 + OH --> + O2 --> HOCHFCH(O2)CF3	(1)
HOCHFCH(O2)CF3 + NO --> HOCHFCH(O)CF3 + NO2	(2)
HOCHFCH(O)CF3 --> CF3CHO + HOCHF	(3)
HOCHF + O2 --> CHFO + HO2	(4)

CHF=CHCF3 + OH --> + O2 --> O2CHFCH(OH)CF3	(5)
O2CHFCH(OH)CF3 + NO --> OCHFCH(OH)CF3 + NO2	(6)
OCHFCH(OH)CF3 --> CHFO + HOCHCF3	(7)
HOCHCF3 + O2 --> CF3CHO + HO2	(8)

CHFO is likely to be removed from the atmosphere mostly by wet deposition with possible hydrolysis; its highest possible OH reaction rate constant consistent with the existing measurement is a slow 1.0 x 10[-14] cm[3] molecule[−][1] s[−][1] at 298 K (Wallington and Hurley, 1993; IUPAC Data Sheet oFOx28, 2005), and absorption cross sections at near-ultraviolet wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm are unlikely to support significant photolysis (Sander et al., 2006, page 4-82). The most likely process for CF3CHO is reaction with OH followed by addition of O2 as shown in reaction (9) below: while absorption cross sections are significant for wavelengths above 300 nm, the quantum yield for photodissociation is no more than 2% (Sander et al., 2006, page 4-84). CF3C(O)O2 produced in reaction (9) could react with HO2 to produce TFA (CF3C(O)OH) by reaction (10) or CF3C(O)OOH by reaction (11). While the actual rate constant and branching ratio for CF3C(O)O2 + HO2 is not yet measured, the analogous CH3C(O)O2 + HO2 reaction has a branching ratio for CH3C(O)OOH to CH3C(O)OH of 37 x exp(−660/T) (Sander et al., 2006, page 1-59) which equals 4.1 for T = 300 K, 2.6 for T = 250 K, and 1.4 for T = 200 K. CF3C(O)OOH should either react with OH to regenerate the CF3C(O)O2 radical (reaction (12)) or photolyze to an unstable radical which dissociates to CF3 + CO2 (reaction (13)). It must be noted that the CH3C(O)O2 + HO2 reaction has a rate constant expression of 4.3 x 10[−][13] exp( (1040 K)/T ) (Sander et al., 2006, page 1-12), and colder temperatures at altitude would favor TFA formation if the analogy of CF3C(O)O2 to CH3C(O)O2 for reaction with HO2 is valid. Reaction (14), the NO reaction with CF3C(O)O2, produces the same unstable radical that dissociates to CF3 + CO2 as does CF3C(O)OOH reaction with OH (reaction (12)). Its analog, CH3C(O)O2 + NO, has a rate constant expression of 8.1 x 10[−12] exp( (270 K)/T ) (Sander et al., 2006, page 1-13) which suggests that reaction (14) could be the primary channel for CF3C(O)O2 reaction where NO concentrations are high. Measurement of the rate constant expressions for reactions (10), (11), and (14) would be useful in determining whether significant TFA is produced from trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF3CHO) in the atmosphere.

CF3CHO + OH --> + O2 --> CF3C(O)O2	(9)
CF3C(O)O2 + HO2 --> CF3C(O)OH + O3	(10)
CF3C(O)O2 + HO2 --> CF3C(O)OOH + O2	(11)
CF3C(O)OOH + OH --> CF3C(O)O2 + H2O	(12)
CF3C(O)OOH + hν --> CF3 + CO2 + OH	(13)
CF3C(O)O2 + NO --> CF3 + CO2 + NO2	(14)

Similarly to reactions (1), (5), and (9), CF3 adds O2 by reaction (15), and similarly to reactions (2) and (6), NO reacts with CF3O2 in reaction (16) to produce CF3O radical. This radical fragments much more slowly than analogous alkoxy radicals (Sander et al., 2006, page 2-13) and is more likely to react with NO to produce CF2O + FNO (reaction (17)), NO2 to produce CF3ONO2 (reaction (18)), or with any hydrocarbon RH to produce CF3OH (reaction (19)). FNO could be removed by wet deposition, but is also likely to photolyze in the troposphere according to reaction (20) (Sander et al., 2006, page 4-80), and the resulting F atom will quickly produce HF by reaction with any hydrocarbon RH. The production of CF3OH, CF2O + HF, and CF3ONO2 from HFO-1234ze depends on the air composition because the rate constant for reaction (17) at 300 K is five times that of reaction (18) and the rate constant for reaction (19) with RH = C2H6 at 300 K is 10 times lower than that of reaction (18), as shown in Table 3. (The rate constant for reaction (19) with RH = CH4 is lower still.)

CF3 + O2 + M --> CF3O2 + M	(15)
CF3O2 + NO --> CF3O + NO2	(16)
CF3O + NO --> CF2O + FNO	(17)
CF3O + NO2 + M --> CF3ONO2 + M	(18)
CF3O + RH --> CF3OH + R	(19)
FNO + hν --> F + NO	(20)

Table 3. Rate constant data for several CF3O reactions recommended by Sander et al. (2006).
                                   Reaction
                        A, cm[3] molecule[−1] s[−1]
                                    Ea/R, K
                                k at T = 300 K
                                k at T = 250 K
                                   CF3O + NO
                              3.7 x 10[−][11]
                                    −110
                              5.3 x 10[−][11]
                               5.7 x 10[−11]
                     CF3O + NO2 + M (high-pressure limit)
                        1.1 x 10[−11] (T/300)[−1]
                               1.1 x 10[−11]
                               1.3 x 10[−11]
                                  CF3O + CH4
                               2.6 x 10[−12]
                                     1420
                               2.3 x 10[−14]
                               8.9 x 10[−15]
                                  CF3O + C2H6
                               4.9 x 10[−12]
                                      400
                               1.3 x 10[−12]
                               9.9 x 10[−13]

CF2O is likely removed by wet deposition because it has little gas-phase reactivity and its photolytic absorption lies in the vacuum ultraviolet (Sander et al., 2006, page 4-82). CF3OH is removed from the atmosphere by hydrolysis and wet deposition (Lovejoy et al., 1995) because OH does not react, thermal decomposition is exceedingly slow (Huey et al., 1995) and photolysis is negligible (Sander et al., 2006, page 4-82). CF3ONO2 may be water-soluble, and could also be removed by photolysis which regenerates the CF3O radical. What CF3C(O)OH is produced will likely be removed by wet deposition; an OH reaction should be possible as well as photolysis, but we have not found measurements of either reaction in the literature.
TFA production from HFO-1234yf in the atmosphere arises because the F atom and CF3 group are on the same carbon atom, so that nearly any degradation pathway results in CF3CFO, a species that is effectively removed only by hydrolysis to TFA. For HFO-1234ze, the F atom and CF3 group are on different carbon atoms, so that CF3CHO and CHFO result from the first step of tropospheric oxidation. While CHFO is removed primarily by wet deposition, CF3CHO is subject to further oxidation. The production of CF3OH, CF2O + HF, CF3ONO2, or TFA from CF3CHO oxidation depends on the relative amounts of NO and HO2 to react with the CF3C(O)O2 radical and on reaction rate constants that have not yet been measured. Most atmospheric conditions favor the reaction with NO, which does not lead to TFA production, over any channel involving HO2 but because of a lack of laboratory data, significant uncertainty remains. In the absence of such data, it is probable that the oxidation of HFO-1234ze in the atmosphere will result in limited production of TFA.

References
Huey, L.G., D.R. Hanson, and E.R. Lovejoy, Atmospheric fate of CF3OH 1: Gas phase thermal decomposition, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 18771 - 18774, 1995.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Data Sheet oFOx28, Subcommittee for Gas Kinetic Data Evaluation, Evaluated Kinetic Data, 2005. Available via http://www.iupac-kinetic.ch.cam.ac.uk.
Lovejoy, E.R., L.G. Huey, and D.R. Hanson, Atmospheric fate of CF3OH 2: Heterogeneous reaction, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 18775 - 18780, 1995.
Luecken, D., R.E. Waterland, S. Papasavva, K. Taddonio, H. Hutzell, J. Rugh, and S. Andersen, 2009: Ozone and TFA Impacts in North America from degradation of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environ. Sci. Technol., submitted.
Sander, S.P., et al., Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Atmospheric Studies, Evaluation Number 15, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Publication 06-2, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 2006. Available via http://jpldataeval.jpl.nasa.gov.
Wallington, T.J., and M.D. Hurley, Atmospheric Chemistry of HC(O)F: Reaction with OH Radicals, Environ. Sci. Technol. 27, 1448 - 1452, 1993.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26825-26830]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11962]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80857; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Disaster Recovery

June 5, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 24, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.18 relating to disaster
recovery. 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 Exchange adopted Rule 6.18 in 2006 for the limited purpose of
providing alternative means of operation in the event of a physical
disaster. In particular, Rule 6.18, as originally adopted, was intended
to deal with trading floor closures, providing for the operation of a
``Disaster Recovery Facility'' (``DRF'') in the event that a disaster
or other unusual circumstance rendered the trading floor inoperable.\3\
Under original Rule 6.18, if the Exchange were forced to halt trading
due to a disaster or other physical impairment of its trading floor,
the Exchange and its members \4\ could operate remotely in a screen-
based only environment from the DRF while the trading floor was
unavailable. While operating from the DRF, open outcry trading would be
suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54171 (July 19,
2006), 71 FR 42427 (July 26, 2006) (Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Regarding a Disaster Recovery
Facility) (SR-CBOE-2006-001).
    \4\ Prior to its demutualization in 2010, the Exchange was a
member-owned organization. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62382 (June 25, 2010), 75 FR 38164 (July 1, 2010) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Conforming Changes in Connection With Demutualization) (SR-CBOE-
2010-058). Individuals and organizations that may trade on CBOE are
now referred to as Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, Rule 6.18 was amended in connection with the Exchange's
relocation of its primary data center to the East Coast and the
consequent conversion of its former primary data center to a back-up
data center in Chicago.\5\ Specifically, Rule 6.18 was amended to
address other situations in which the primary data center could
continue to operate despite the trading floor being rendered inoperable
or in which the back-up data center might be used despite the trading
floor being operational. Specifically, as amended, Rule 6.18 provided
that in the event that the Exchange were forced to switch operations to
the back-up data center, the Exchange's trading floor could still be
used and that in the event that the trading floor were inoperable, the
Exchange could still operate using a floorless configuration or screen-
based only environment on the Exchange's primary data center.
References to the DRF and other irrelevant portions of the original
rule were eliminated or replaced with references to Exchange's primary
and back-up data centers as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68301 (November 27,
2012), 77 FR 71650 (December 3, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend CBOE
Rule 6.18 Concerning the Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility) (SR-
CBOE-2012-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, Rule 6.18 was again amended to add greater detail to the
Exchange's disaster recovery rules and harmonize the disaster recovery
rules with newly implemented disaster recovery-related regulatory
imperatives of Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity
(``Regulation SCI''), which superseded and replaced the SEC's voluntary
Automation Review Policy.\6\ In doing so, the Exchange made certain
changes to Rule 6.18 to provide additional details regarding the
Exchange's back-up trading systems, business continuity and disaster
recovery plans, and testing and update its disaster recovery rules to
ensure consistency with Regulation SCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76203 (October 20,
2015), 80 FR 65258 (October 26, 2015) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Disaster Recovery) (SR-CBOE-2015-088); see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 73639 (November 19, 2014), 79 FR at 72252 (December
5, 2014) (Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity) (File No. S7-
01-13); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27445 (November 16,
1989), 54 FR 48703 (November 24, 1989) (Automated Systems of Self-
Regulatory Organizations) (File No. S7-29-89); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 29185 (May 9, 1991), 56 FR 22490 (May 15, 1991)
(Automated Systems of Self-Regulatory Organizations) (File No. S7-
12-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to make additional changes to its
disaster recovery rules to provide the Exchange authority to take
additional steps necessary to preserve the Exchange's ability to
conduct business in the event that the Exchange's primary and/or back-
up data center(s) become inoperable or otherwise unavailable for use
due to a significant systems failure, disaster or other unusual
circumstances and make clear in the Rules the intermediary steps that
the Exchange may take to disable certain systems and users'
connectivity while continuing to operate its primary data center. The
Exchange believes this authority serves the interests of all investors
and the general public, because it helps the Exchange ensure its
continuous operation and ability to maintain fair and orderly markets
in the event of a significant systems failure or other unusual
circumstance.
Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.18 relating to disaster
recovery. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make changes to Rule
6.18 to: (1) Allow the Exchange to establish certain additional
temporary requirements applicable to particular Designated BCP/DR
Participants \7\ during use of the back-up data center; (2) provide
that the Exchange may determine to temporarily allow trading in
proprietary classes of options and classes of options exclusively-
licensed \8\ by the Exchange \9\ in an exclusively floor-based
environment via open outcry in order to preserve the Exchange's ability
to provide fair and orderly markets in those classes in the event that
the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers become inoperable or
otherwise unavailable for use due to a significant systems failure,
disaster, or other unusual circumstances; (3) permit the Exchange to
deactivate certain nonessential systems and systems functionalities in
response to limited systems disruptions or malfunctions, security
intrusions, systems compliance issues, or other unusual circumstances;
and (4) permit the Exchange to restrict access of a TPH or associated
person to

the Hybrid Trading System \10\ and other Exchange systems if such
access poses a significant threat to the Exchange's ability to operate
systems essential to maintain a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under Rule 6.18(b)(iv), the Exchange shall designate those
Trading Permit Holders that the Exchange determines are, as a whole,
necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in the
event of the activation of the Exchange's business continuity and
disaster recovery plans (``Designated BCP/DR Participants'').
Designated BCP/DR Participants will be identified based on criteria
determined by the Exchange and announced via Regulatory Circular,
which may include whether the TPH is an appointed DPM, LMM, or
Market-Maker in a class and the quality of markets provided by the
DPM, LMM, or Market-Maker, the amount of volume transacted by the
market participant in a class or on the Exchange in general,
operational capacity, trading experience, and historical
contribution to fair and orderly markets on the Exchange. Designated
BCP/DR Participants shall include, at a minimum, all Market-Makers
in option classes exclusively listed on the Exchange that stream
quotes in such classes and all DPMs in multiply listed option
classes.
    \8\ The Exchange's current suite of proprietary and exclusively-
licensed option products includes options on CBOE Volatility Index
(VIX) futures, the S&P 500 (SPX and XSP) Index, S&P Dow Jones
Indexes (OEX, XEO, and DJX), Russell 2000 (RUT) Index, FTSE Emerging
Index (FTEM/EMS), MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF), and the MSCI
EAFE Index (MXEA), among others. The Exchange will maintain a
current list of all proprietary and exclusively-licensed options
products on the Exchange's Web site, including for purposes of this
rule.
    \9\ Options exclusively-listed on the Exchange may include
products listed on the Exchange and certain other CBOE Holdings Inc.
affiliated exchanges, including C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``C2''), Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), Bats BYX Exchange Inc.
(``BYX''), Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Bats EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX''). Currently, RUT is listed on both CBOE and C2. All
other exclusively-listed products are currently listed on CBOE only.
    \10\ Under Rule 1.1(aaa), the ``Hybrid Trading System'' refers
to (i) the Exchange's trading platform that allows Market-Makers to
submit electronic quotes in their appointed classes and (ii) any
connectivity to the foregoing trading platform that is administered
by or on behalf of the Exchange, such as a communications hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B) (Alternative
BCP/DR Participant Obligations), which would provide that during the
use of the back-up data center, the Exchange may, if necessary for the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, establish heightened quoting
obligations for Designated BCP/DR Participants in a class in which the
Designated BCP/DR Participant is already an appointed Lead Market-Maker
or Market-Maker up to the standards specified for Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``DPMs'') specified in Rule 8.85(a) \11\ and/or disallow
the ability to deselect an appointment intraday in a class in which the
Designated BCP/DR Participant is already an appointed Market-Maker.\12\
Proposed Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B) would also provide that the Exchange would
notify market participants of any such additional temporary
requirements prior to implementation in a reasonable manner as
determined by the Exchange.\13\ The Exchange believes this extended
authority would afford the Exchange with necessary flexibility to
address unexpected contingencies that may arise if a disaster or other
unusual circumstances occur, causing the Exchange to use the back-up
data center and help ensure that the Exchange operate a fair and
orderly market in the event of a market emergency. The Exchange also
proposes non-substantive changes to the lettering in paragraph (b)(iv)
to accommodate the addition of new Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B). Accordingly,
current Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B) would become Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(C), and
current Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(C) would become Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Currently, under Rule 8.85(a)(i), for example, DPMs must
provide continuous electronic quotes (as defined in Rule 1.1(ccc))
in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or
100% of the non-adjusted option series minus one call-put pair, with
the term ``call-put pair'' referring to one call and one put that
cover the same underlying instrument and have the same expiration
date and exercise price, and assure that its disseminated market
quotations are accurate. Compliance with this quoting obligation
applies to all of a DPM's allocated classes collectively. The
Exchange will determine compliance by a DPM with this quoting
obligation on a monthly basis. However, determining compliance with
this obligation on a monthly basis does not relieve a DPM from
meeting this obligation on a daily basis, nor does it prohibit the
Exchange from taking disciplinary action against DPM for failing to
meet this obligation each trading day. See Rule 8.85(a)(i).
Accordingly, under proposed Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B), during use of the
back-up data center, the Exchange could require that Market-Makers
in SPXW provide continuous electronic quotes in up to 99% of the
non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-adjusted option series
minus one call-put pair.
    \12\ In accordance with Rule 1001(a)(2)(v) of Regulation SCI,
the Exchange maintains written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that its trading systems (including with respect
to both the Exchange's primary and back-up data center trading
systems), have levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain the Exchange's
operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets, including, but not limited to business continuity
and disaster recovery plans that are reasonably designed to achieve
next two-hour resumption of its critical SCI systems, as defined in
Rule 1000 of Regulation SCI. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
73639 (November 19, 2014), 79 FR 72252 (December 5, 2014)
(Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity) (File No. S7-01-13).
Notably, the Exchange employs business continuity and disaster
recovery standards reasonably designed to achieve two-hour
resumption of all trading systems that are essential to conducting
business on the Exchange and which the Exchange believes are
reasonably designed to support resumption in a significantly shorter
amount of time, including, but not limited to with respect to those
systems that are essential to the trading of proprietary products
and products exclusively licensed for trading on the Exchange.
    \13\ The Exchange would make these notifications on the Systems
Notification page on the Exchange's Web site, via the Exchange's
Order Management Terminals (``OMTs''), via an Exchange-used
messaging service, and/or other reasonable notification mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 6.18(c) (Operation via Open
Outcry), which would provide that if the Exchange's primary and back-up
data centers become inoperable or otherwise unavailable for use due to
a significant systems failure, disaster, or other unusual
circumstances, in the interests of maintaining fair and orderly markets
or for the protection of investors, the Exchange may determine, on a
class-by-class basis, to temporarily allow trading in its exclusively-
licensed and/or proprietary products \14\ in an exclusively floor-based
environment via open outcry in order to preserve the Exchange's ability
to conduct business in those option classes.\15\ Similar to the
Exchange's authority in current Rule 6.18(c) (proposed Rule 6.18(d)),
which permits the Exchange to operate in a screen-based only
environment if the trading floor facility is inoperable, proposed Rule
6.18(c) would afford the Exchange necessary flexibility to temporarily
operate in open outcry in order to trade certain classes of options
that are either proprietary or exclusively-licensed in the event that
the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers are inoperable due to a
significant systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstances.
The Exchange believes that the providing authority for it to
temporarily operate in an exclusively floor-based environment in such a
situation would help ensure the Exchange's ability to continue to
conduct business and help preserve the Exchange's ability to
continuously provide fair and orderly markets in classes of options
that are only traded on CBOE or exclusively-licensed to CBOE. The
Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to the lettering in Rule
6.18 to accommodate the addition of new Rule 6.18(c). Accordingly,
current Rule 6.18(c) would become Rule 6.18(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra at note 8.
    \15\ See supra at note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 6.18(e) (Deactivation of
Certain Systems), which would provide that in the event of a systems
disruption or malfunction, security intrusion, systems compliance
issue, or other unusual circumstances, the Exchange may, in accordance
with the Rules or if necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets or
to protect investors, temporarily deactivate certain systems or systems
functionalities that are not essential to conducting business on the
Exchange. Many of the systems and systems functionalities described in
the Rules are provided optionally by the Exchange to enhance
participants' trading experience, but are not required to be active
under the Rules and are not necessary for the Exchange to conduct
business.\16\ As is described in the Rules, many of the Exchange's
systems functionalities may be made available (or unavailable) by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis. Such systems and systems
functionalities that are non-essential to conducting business on the
Exchange include, but are not limited to, Public Automated Routing
(``PAR'') \17\ workstations, the Automated Improvement Mechanism
(``AIM''),\18\ and the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Rules 6.2, 6.2A, 6.2B, 6.12, 6.13, 6.13A, 6.13B,
6.14A, 6.53, 6.53C, 6.74A, and 6.74B.
    \17\ See generally Rule 6.12, Rule 6.12A.
    \18\ See generally Rule 6.74A.
    \19\ See generally Rule 6.74B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the activation of other functionalities may not be
described by rule, but could be suspended temporarily (e.g., until the
earlier of the end of a trading session or until systems disruptions
could be remedied) if disruption or malfunction of that functionality
were to interfere with the Exchange's ability to conduct business in a
fair and orderly manner. For example, if a certain order type were to

cause a wider system malfunction or a certain complex order product
could not be created without triggering widespread systems issues \20\
the Exchange might announce, via its systems status page or otherwise,
the suspension of the availability of that order type or complex
product. If such an event impacts a non-essential system or system
functionality, the Exchange may deem it necessary to maintain fair and
orderly markets to deactivate that system or functionality until any
issues are resolved to prevent any potential harm to investors.
Proposed Rule 6.18(e) would also provide that the Exchange would notify
market participants of any such deactivation, and subsequent
reactivation, promptly and in a reasonable manner determined by the
Exchange. The Exchange may make these notifications on the Systems
Notification page on the Exchange's Web site, via the OMT, via an
Exchange-used messaging service such as SendWordNow \21\ Regulatory
Circular, and/or other reasonable notification mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, if the creation of a certain complex order
product (e.g. the October/November calendar spread in class XYZ)
were to cause significant trading disruptions in an entire class
(e.g., trading in all of XYZ), the Exchange might determine to turn
off calendar spreads or complex orders in general in the class in
order to help ensure that regular trading (i.e. trading of simple
orders) in the class remained available. Notably, Rule 6.53C permits
the Exchange to determine which classes and which complex order
origin types (i.e., non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-
dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange) are eligible for entry into the COB and whether such
complex orders can route directly to the COB and/or from PAR to the
COB. Note also, in this case, if the Exchange were to suspend such
complex order types, complex products could still be ``created'' by
legging.
    \21\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-030 (Send Word Now Smart
Notification Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes Rule 6.18(f) (Connectivity
Restriction), which would permit the Exchange to temporarily restrict a
TPH's or associated person's access to the Hybrid Trading System or
other electronic trading systems if it is determined by the President
(or senior-level designee) of the Exchange, that because of a systems
issue, such access threatens the Exchange's ability to operate systems
essential to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.\22\ Such
access would remain restricted until the end of the trading session or
an earlier time if the President (or senior-level designee) of the
Exchange, in consultation with the affected TPH(s), determines that
lifting the restriction no longer poses a threat to the Exchange's
ability to operate systems essential to conducting business or
continuing to maintain a fair and orderly market on the Exchange or to
investors.\23\ In the current electronic trading environment, if a
TPH's systems malfunctions or is compromised, it could disrupt the
Exchange's systems or market or harm other investors. For example,
software malfunctions may pose a risk to the Exchange's systems,
investors, and the general public without proper risk controls.
Proposed Rule 6.18(f) would simply give the Exchange the authority to
activate additional risk controls to stem the access of a TPH that has
experienced a systems disruption or malfunction, which poses undue risk
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In such cases, the Exchange would make efforts to contact
the affected TPH immediately before or contemporaneously with the
restriction of access to the Hybrid Trading System to the extent
possible while protecting the Exchange's ability to operate systems
essential to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
    \23\ In determining whether to a TPH's access threatens the
Exchange's ability to operate systems essential to the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets and/or determining that lifting the
restriction no longer poses a threat to the Exchange's ability to
operate systems essential to conducting business or continuing to
maintain a fair and orderly market on the Exchange or to investors,
a designee of the President of the Exchange would only be charged
with making such determinations in the President of the Exchange's
absence. In such cases, the designee would be a senior executive
(i.e. Vice President or above) of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\24\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \25\ 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) \26\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to promote the Exchange's
ability to ensure the continued operation of a fair and orderly market
in the event of a systems failure, disaster, or other unusual
circumstances that might threaten the ability to conduct business on
the Exchange. The Exchange recognizes that switching operations to the
back-up data center may occur in times of uncertainty or great
volatility in the markets. It is at these times that the investors may
have the greatest need for viable, trustworthy marketplaces. The
proposed rule change seeks to ensure that such a marketplace will exist
when most needed and thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
protects investors in the most fundamental sense.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed Rule
6.18(b)(iv)(B) allowing the Exchange, during the use of the back-up
data center to (1) establish heightened quoting obligations for
Designated BCP/DR Participants in a class in which the Designated BCP/
DR Participant is already an appointed Lead Market-Maker or Market-
Maker up to the standards specified for Designated Primary Market-
Makers specified in Rule 8.85(a) and/or (2) disallow the ability to
deselect an appointment intraday in a class in which the Designated
BCP/DR Participant is already an appointed Market-Maker would help
ensure the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in the event of a
disaster, which is in the interests of all market participants,
investors, and the general public. The Exchange believes that adopting
rules that help ensure that markets are open and available during times
of turmoil and emergency is an important goal consistent with the Act.
In the same vein, the Exchange believes that proposed Rule 6.18(c),
which would permit the Exchange, in the interests of maintaining fair
and orderly markets or for the protection of investors, to temporarily
allow trading in certain proprietary and exclusively-licensed options
classes, which only trade on the Exchange or the Exchange and the
Exchange's affiliated exchanges, in an exclusively floor-based
environment via open outcry to preserve the Exchange's ability conduct
business on the Exchange in those option classes. The Exchange believes
that this proposed provision would help the Exchange maintain fair and
orderly markets in these classes during a disaster situation and would
serve the interests of market participants, investors, and the general
public by helping to ensure that the Exchange's proprietary and
exclusively-licensed

products remain available for trading in the event of a significant
systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstances. The Exchange
also believes that deactivation of certain systems in proposed Rule
6.18(e), whether by rule or otherwise, in order to ensure that the
Exchange is able to provide a fair and orderly market in the face of
systems disruptions and malfunction is in the best interests of market
participants, investors, and the general public.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed connectivity
restriction in proposed Rule 6.18(f) would help ensure that the
Exchange remains open and available to all market participants. The
Exchange notes that other connectivity restrictions are already in
place on the Exchange.\27\ Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
proposed Rule 6.18(f) is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) \28\ of the
Act, which requires the Exchange to adopt rules that provide a fair
procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with
members, the denial of membership to any person seeking membership
therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated with a
member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the exchange of
any person with respect to access to services offered by the exchange
or a member thereof. The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 6.18(f) is
not aimed at denying access to a particular TPH, but rather making sure
that the Exchange remains accessible to all other TPHs that do not
threaten the Exchange's ability to conduct normal business operations.
The Exchange notes that as soon as the President of the Exchange (or
designee), working with the TPH organization that poses a threat to the
Exchange, were able to confirm that the TPH organization no longer
posed such a threat, access to the Exchange would be restored to that
TPH. The Exchange believes that this is a fair result and is in the
best interests of all market participants, investors, and the general
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Rules 6.23A (Trading Permit Holder Connectivity)
and 6.23C (Technical Disconnect). Under Rule 6.23A(b), the Exchange
may limit the number of messages sent by Trading Permit Holders
accessing the Exchange electronically in order to protect the
integrity of the Hybrid trading system. In addition, the Exchange
may impose restrictions on the use of a computer connected through
an application programming interface (``API'') if it believes such
restrictions are necessary to ensure the proper performance of the
system. Any such restrictions shall be objectively determined and
submitted to the Commission for approval pursuant to a rule change
filing under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Under Rule 6.23C(a),
when a CBOE Application Server (``CAS'') loses communication with a
Client Application such that a CAS does not receive an appropriate
response to a Heartbeat Request within ``x'' period of time, the
Technical Disconnect Mechanism will automatically logoff the Trading
Permit Holder's affected Client Application and automatically cancel
all the Trading Permit Holder's Market-Maker quotes, if applicable,
and open orders with a time-in-force of ``day'' resting in the Book
(which excludes orders resting on a PAR workstation or order
management terminal) (``day orders''), if the Trading Permit Holder
enables that optional service, posted through the affected Client
Application.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade by adding detail and clarity to
the Rules. The proposed rule change seeks to provide additional clarity
to the Exchange's disaster recovery rules, putting all market
participants on notice as to how the Exchange will function in case of
significant systems disruption or other disaster situation. The
Exchange is continuously updating the Rules to provide additional
detail, clarity, and transparency regarding its operations and trading
systems and regulatory authority. The Exchange believes that the
adoption of detailed, clear, and transparent rules reduces burdens on
competition and promotes just and equitable principles of trade. The
Exchange also believes that adding greater detail to the Rules
regarding the Exchange's ability to ensure the continuous operation of
the market and preserve the ability to conduct business on the Exchange
will increase confidence in the markets and encourage wider
participation in the markets and greater investment.

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 proposed rule
change will help ensure that competitive markets remain operative in
the event of a systems failure or other disaster event. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change is designed to provide the Exchange
with authority to require market participants to participate in, and
provide necessary liquidity to, the market to ensure that the Exchange
functions in a fair and orderly manner in the event of a significant
systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstances. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
ensure fair and competitive markets at time when they may be most
needed.

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 written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-044. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-044, and should be
submitted on or before June 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11962 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P