[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36566]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0018]

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Assistance to Private
Sector Property Insurers, Availability of FY 2013 Arrangement

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Each year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
required by the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program Financial Assistance/
Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) to notify private insurance companies
(Companies) and to make available to the Companies the terms for
subscription or re-subscription to the Arrangement. In keeping with
that requirement, this notice provides the terms to the Companies to
subscribe or re-subscribe to the Arrangement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward L. Connor, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Federal Insurance, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 720, Arlington,
VA 20598-3020,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program
Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement), 82 (as of
April, 2012) private sector property insurers sell flood insurance
policies and adjust flood insurance claims under their own names based
on an Arrangement with the Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration (FIMA) published at 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A.
    The WYO insurers retain an expense allowance and remit the
remaining premium to the Federal Government. The Federal Government
pays flood losses and pays loss adjustment expenses based on a fee
schedule. In addition, under certain circumstances reimbursement for
litigation costs, including court costs, attorney fees, judgments, and
settlements, are paid by FEMA based on documentation submitted by the
WYO insurers.
    The complete Arrangement is published in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix
A. Each year, FEMA is required to publish in the Federal Register and
make available to the Companies the terms for subscription or re-
subscription to the Arrangement.
    Signatory Companies should remain aware that all requirements of
the Arrangement, including, but not limited to, financial accounting in
issues involving all transactions, must be met. As set forth in Article
II.A.1. of Appendix A to Part 62--Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Federal Insurance Administration, Financial Assistance/Subsidy
Arrangement, the Company is responsible for meeting all fiduciary
responsibilities for control and disbursement of funds in connection
with policy administration. This includes ensuring that all accounting
for policy administration is correct. If errors are made in policy
administration, the Company shall be responsible for reimbursing any
incorrect allocations, assessment or other moneys compensated to that
company by the Federal Government.
    The Company is responsible for ensuring that all activities meet
the requirements of this Arrangement and of the NFIP Financial Control
Plan, 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. The NFIP WYO Standards Committee may
take remedial action in the event any such conduct is not corrected.
    FEMA will send a copy of the offer for the FY 2013 Arrangement,
together with related materials and submission instructions, to all
private insurance companies participating under the current FY 2012
Arrangement.
    Any private insurance company not currently participating in the
WYO Program but wishing to consider FEMA's offer for FY 2013 may
request a copy by writing: DHS/FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Attn: Edward L. Connor, Deputy Associate Administrator
for Federal Insurance, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 720, Arlington, VA 20598-3020,
or contact Edward Connor at<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

    Dated: May 4, 2012.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-14831 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15076-15079]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69025; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

March 4, 2013.
    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 February 19, 2013, 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 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 its Fees Schedule. 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
    On February 8, 2013, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
that would amend CBOE rules to permit the listing and trading, on a
pilot basis, of cash-settled S&P 500 index options with third-Friday-
of-the-month (``Expiration Friday'') expiration dates for which the
exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from
the closing prices of component securities (``P.M.-settled'') (the
proposed contract is referred to as ``SPXPM'').\3\ As such, the
Exchange proposes herein to establish fees for SPXPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68888 (February 8,
2013), 78 FR 10668 (February 14, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2012-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange already lists and trades A.M.-settled options on the
S&P 500 index under the contract ``SPX.'' Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to assess the same fees regarding SPXPM as are assessed
regarding SPX (with a few exceptions, which shall be explained herein).
Like SPX, SPXPM is one of the Exchange's proprietary index options
products, and the Proprietary Index Options Rate Table will apply to
SPXPM (as such, SPXPM, like SPX, will be excluded from the Exchange's
other Index Options Rate Table, which excludes a number of proprietary
index products \4\). Transaction fees for SPXPM will be as follows (all
listed rates are per contract):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Index Options Rate Table--All
Index Products Excluding SPX, SPXW, SRO, OEX, XEO, VIX and
VOLATILITY INDEXES.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer (Premium > or = $1)....................................   $0.44
Customer (Premium < $1).........................................    0.35
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary......................    0.25
CBOE Market-Maker/DPM/E-DPM/LMM.................................    0.20
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder         0.40
 Market-Maker...................................................
Professional/Voluntary Professional.............................    0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the proposed SPXPM transaction fees listed above are the
same amounts as those for SPX, with the exception of the Professional/
Voluntary Professional fee.\5\ SPX is traded on the Exchange's Hybrid
3.0 system (``Hybrid 3.0''), and the Professional and Voluntary
Professional designations are not available in Hybrid 3.0 classes.\6\
As such, Professionals and Voluntary Professionals trading SPX are
assessed the same fee amounts as customers. However, SPXPM, like all
proprietary index options products except SPX, will be traded on the
Exchange's Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid''), which recognizes the
difference between Professionals/Voluntary Professionals and Customers.
As such, the Exchange proposes to assess to Professionals/Voluntary
Professionals the same fee amounts as apply to the majority of other
proprietary index options trading on Hybrid.\7\ The Exchange also
proposes to apply to SPXPM, like SPX, the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04
per contract ($0.02 per contract for crossed orders) (the Floor
Brokerage Fee applies only to Floor Brokers, and only for open outcry
trading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Proprietary Index Options Rate
Table--SPX, SPXW, SRO, OEX, XEO, VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES.
    \6\ See Exchange Rules 1.1(fff) and 1.1(ggg).
    \7\ This includes OEX, XEO, VIX and Volatility Indexes, and
SPXW, which is a series of SPX that is P.M.-settled and is traded on
the Hybrid system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to apply to SPXPM, like SPX, an Index
License Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract.\8\ The Exchange licenses
from Standard & Poor's the right to offer an index option product based
on the S&P 500 index (including SPXPM). In order to recoup the costs of
the S&P 500 Index license, the Exchange assesses a surcharge on S&P 500
Index-based products. We note that the cost of that license works out
to more than the proposed SPXPM Surcharge amount of $0.13 per SPXPM
contract traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Proprietary Index Options Rate
Table--SPX, SPXW, SRO, OEX, XEO, VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like SPX, the Exchange proposes to except SPXPM from the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale,\9\ the Marketing Fee,\10\ the Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Fee Cap in all products except SPX, SRO, VIX or other
volatility indexes, OEX or XEO (the ``Fee Cap''), the exemption from
fees for facilitation orders,\11\ the AIM Contra Execution Fee
(applicable standard transaction fees will apply to AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM
and FLEX SAM executions in SPXPM, like SPX),\12\ the CFLEX AIM Response
Fee (applicable standard transaction fees will apply to FLEX AIM and
FLEX SAM response executions in SPXPM, like SPX),\13\ the Market-Maker
Trading Permit Sliding Scale,\14\ and the CFLEX AIM Credit (which has
already expired and the Exchange will propose to remove from the Fees
Schedule shortly).\15\ Like SPX, the Exchange proposes to apply to
SPXPM the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale \16\ and the Customer
Large Trade Discount.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale
Table and Footnote 10.
    \10\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote 6.
    \11\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnotes 11 and 22.
    \12\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote 18.
    \13\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote 20.
    \14\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Trading Pemit
[sic] Sliding Scale Table and Footnote 24.
    \15\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote 28.
    \16\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale Table and Footnote 23.
    \17\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Customer Large Trade Discount
Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike SPX, the Exchange does not propose to apply a Tier
Appointment Fee \18\ to SPXPM at this time, as the Exchange does not
want to discourage Market-Makers from registering for an SPXPM tier
appointment. Because the Exchange is not assessing a Tier Appointment
Fee for SPXPM, the Exchange will also not assess a fee to Floor Brokers
who execute more than 20,000 SPXPM contracts during a month (this fee
is assessed regarding SPX).\19\ Such a fee, as applied to SPX and VIX
options transactions, is intended to equalize the opportunity between
Market-Makers and Floor Brokers in those classes (since SPX and VIX
options both have a Tier Appointment Fee). Unlike SPX, the Exchange
also does not propose to apply the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee \20\ to
SPXPM, as SPXPM will not be trading on Hybrid 3.0. The Exchange does
not propose to apply the SPX Arbitrage Phone Positions Fee \21\ to
SPXPM, as that fee regards the Exchange's actual SPX trading pit. The
Exchange also does not propose to apply the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(CME) Members SPX and OEX

Fees \22\ to SPXPM, as such fees are no longer applicable to CBOE and
the Exchange intends to propose to remove them from the Fees Schedule
shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit and Tier
Appointment Fees Table.
    \19\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Footnote 25.
    \20\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Proprietary Index Options Rate
Table--SPX, SPXW, SRO, OEX, XEO, VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES and
Footnote 21.
    \21\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Facility Fees Table.
    \22\ See Exchange Fees Schedule, Trading Permit Holder
Transaction Fee Policies and Rebate Programs Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\23\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\24\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities. The proposed SPXPM transaction fee
amounts for the orders of Customers, Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary, CBOE Market-Makers/DPMs/E-DPMs/LMMs, Joint Back-Office,
Broker-Dealers, and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers are
reasonable because they are the same as the amounts of corresponding
fees for SPX orders (SPX and SPXPM are based on the same underlying
index). The proposed SPXPM transaction fee amounts for Professional and
Voluntary Professional orders are reasonable because they are the same
as the amounts for corresponding fees for a number of other proprietary
index options orders (including SPXW, which is based on the same
underlying index as SPXPM and is also P.M.-settled). Assessing, for
Professional and Voluntary Professional SPXPM orders, the same fee
amount as that for SPXW orders (as opposed to the same fee amount as
SPX orders) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because SPX,
unlike SPXPM and a number of other proprietary index options, trades on
Hybrid 3.0, and the Professional and Voluntary Professional
designations are not available in Hybrid 3.0 classes. Since SPXPM will
trade on Hybrid, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
assess the same fee amount for Professional and Voluntary Professional
SPXPM orders as for other proprietary index options products that also
trade on Hybrid (including SPXW, which is based on the same underlying
index as SPXPM and is also P.M.-settled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower
fees to CBOE Market-Maker/DPM/E-DPM/LMM orders than those other market
participants because CBOE Market-Makers/DPMs/E-DPMs/LMMs must take on a
number of obligations, such as quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not take on. Similarly, it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary orders than those of other market participants
because Clearing Trading Permit Holders have a number of obligations
(such as membership with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant
regulatory burdens, and financial obligations, that other market
participants do not need to take on.
    Assessing a higher fee for Customer transactions in SPXPM options
whose premium is greater than or equal to $1.00 than for Customer
transactions in SPXPM options whose premium is less than $1.00 is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the nearly all
options based on the S&P 500 Index are priced at well above $1.00.
However, most Customers, at the end of an expiration cycle, desire to
continue to hold options based on the S&P 500 Index (including both SPX
and SPXPM), and because it is the end of an expiration cycle, such
options are priced very low. The Exchange therefore offers lower
pricing for Customer SPX options (and proposes to offer equivalent
pricing for SPXPM options) in order to encourage such trading and thus
encourage Customers to open SPX (and SPXPM) options positions in the
next cycle. As these new positions will almost certainly be priced
above $1.00, offering the lower pricing for SPXPM options whose premium
is below $1.00 therefore benefits market participants trading SPXPM
options whose premium is at or above $1.00 by encouraging Customers to
open up those positions (thereby providing greater liquidity). Customer
fees for SPXPM options will still be lower than those assessed to
Broker-Dealers and non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers (among other
market participants) because Customers are not assessed a Surcharge Fee
for SPXPM options transactions. Further, the Exchange currently offers
different fees depending on the premium for Customer transactions in
SPX options, and the amounts of the proposed SPXPM Customer transaction
fees are equivalent to those already in existence for SPX.
    Also, the SPXPM fee amounts for each separate type of market
participant will be assessed equally to all such market participants
(i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be assessed the same amount, all
Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed the same amount, etc.), and
the amounts are the same as those assessed for similar SPX transactions
(except for Voluntary Professional and Professional SPXPM transactions,
which are assessed the same fee amount as transactions in a number of
other proprietary index options products, as discussed above).
    Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract ($0.02 per
contract for crossed orders) to Floor Brokers (and not other market
participants) trading SPXPM orders is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because only Floor Brokers are statutorily capable of
representing orders in the trading crowd, for which they charge a
commission. Moreover, this fee is already assessed, in the same
amounts, to SPX orders.
    Assessing the Index License Surcharge Fee of $0.13 per contract to
SPXPM transactions is reasonable because the Exchange still pays more
for the SPXPM license than the amount of the proposed SPXPM Index
License Surcharge Fee (meaning that the Exchange will be subsidizing
the costs of the SPXPM license). This increase is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the increased amount will be assessed
to all market participants to whom the SPXPM Surcharge applies. Not
applying the SPXPM Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to
attract Customer SPXPM orders, which increases liquidity and provides
greater trading opportunities to all market participants. Further,
there is a longstanding practice in the options marketplace of
providing preferential pricing for Customers. Moreover, the proposed
SPXPM Index License Surcharge Fee amount is the same amount as already
exists for SPX, which also does not apply to Customer orders.
    Excepting SPXPM from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the
Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, the exemption from fees for facilitation
orders, the AIM Contra Execution Fee, the CFLEX AIM Response Fee, the
Market-Maker Trading Permit Sliding Scale, and the CFLEX AIM Credit is
reasonable because SPX is excepted from those same items. This is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it seems
equitable to except SPXPM from items on the Fees Schedule from which
SPX, an index options product that, like SPXPM, is based on the S&P 500
Index, is also excepted (barring any further rationale to the
contrary).
    Applying to SPXPM the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale and
the Customer Large Trade Discount is

reasonable because these items apply to SPX. This is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it seems equitable
(barring any further rationale to the contrary) to apply to SPXPM the
same items on the Fees Schedule that apply to SPX (an index options
product that, like SPXPM, is based on the S&P 500 Index).
    Not applying a Tier Appointment Fee, the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee,
the SPX Arbitrage Phone Positions Fee, and the CME Members SPX Fee to
SPXPM is reasonable because those market participants involved in the
trading of SPXPM will not have to pay such fees. Not applying a Tier
Appointment Fee to SPXPM is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange desires to encourage Market-Makers to register for
an SPXPM tier appointment, and the more Market-Makers that do so, the
more SPXPM quoting there will be, which benefits all market
participants. Not applying a fee to Floor Brokers who execute more than
20,000 SPXPM contracts during a month is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is not assessing a Tier Appointment
Fee for SPXPM (the fee for Floor Brokers in SPX is intended to equalize
the opportunity between Market-Makers and Floor Brokers in those
classes (since SPX has a Tier Appointment Fee)).
    Not applying the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Fee to SPXPM is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because SPXPM is not traded on Hybrid 3.0.
Not assessing the SPX Arbitrage Phone Positions Fee to SPXPM is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this fee refers to
the actual SPX crowd area at the Exchange. Not applying the CME Members
SPX Fee to SPXPM is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
such fees are no longer applicable to CBOE and the Exchange intends
propose to remove them from the Fees Schedule shortly.

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. CBOE does not believe that
assessing lower fees to CBOE Market-Maker/DPM/E-DPM/LMM orders than
those other market participants will impose any unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because CBOE Market-Makers/DPMs/E-DPMs/LMMs
must take on a number of obligations, such as quoting obligations, that
other market participants do not take on. Similarly, CBOE does not
believe that assessing lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary orders than those of other market participants will impose
any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because Clearing
Trading Permit Holders have a number of obligations (such as membership
with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant regulatory burdens,
and financial obligations, that other market participants do not need
to take on.
    CBOE does not believe that not applying the SPXPM Index License
Surcharge Fee to Customer orders will impose any unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because this is designed to attract Customer
SPXPM orders, which increases liquidity and provides greater trading
opportunities to all market participants. Further, there is a
longstanding practice in the options marketplace of providing
preferential pricing for Customers.
    CBOE does not believe that the proposed SPXPM fees will impose any
unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because SPXPM is a
proprietary product that will only be traded on CBOE. However, to the
extent that the proposed SPXPM fees may be attractive to market
participants on other exchanges, such market participants may always
elect to become CBOE market participants.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2013-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2013-025. 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 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 No. SR-CBOE-2013-025 and should be
submitted on or before March 29, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05409 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P