[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 57733]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications

Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     File
            Docket no.               date      Presenter or  requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P-12715-003...................    9-6-11  Brandi Sangunett \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summary of telephone conversation.

    Dated: September 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23736 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20362-20369]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69258; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-038]

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 29, 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 March 18, 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, 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 the
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
    The Exchange recently amended CBOE rules to enable the listing and
trading of option contracts overlying 10 shares of a security (``Mini
options'', or ``Minis'').\3\ Because the regular per-contract unit of
trading for the five options classes (SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN)
on which the Exchange has proposed listing Minis is 100 shares, a Mini
effectively functions as \1/10\ of a regular options contract
(generally speaking). The Exchange hereby proposes to adopt fees for
the trading of Minis (all fees referenced herein are per-contract
unless otherwise stated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68656 (January 15,
2013), 78 FR 4526 (January 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-001), in which
the Exchange proposed to list Mini Options on SPDR S&P 500
(``SPY''), Apple, Inc. (``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google
Inc. (``GOOG'') and Amazon.com Inc. (``AMZN'') (together, the ``Mini
Classes''). SPY and GLD are Exchange-Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and
AAPL, AMZN and GOOG are equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minis have a smaller exercise and assignment value due to the
reduced number of shares they deliver as compared to standard option
contracts. As such, the Exchange is proposing generally lower per
contract fees as compared to standard option contracts, with some
exceptions to be fully described below. Despite the smaller exercise
and assignment value of a Mini, the cost to the Exchange to process
quotes and orders in Minis, perform regulatory surveillance and retain
quotes and orders for archival purposes is the same as a for a standard
contract. This leaves the Exchange in a position of trying to strike
the right balance of fees applicable to Minis--too low and the costs of
processing Mini quotes and orders will necessarily cause the Exchange
to either raise fees for everyone or only for participants trading
Minis; too high and participants may be deterred from trading Minis,
leaving the Exchange less able to recoup costs associated with
development of the product, which is designed to offer investors a way
to take less risk in high-dollar securities. The Exchange, therefore,
believes that adopting fees for Minis that are in some cases lower than
fees for standard contracts, and in other cases the same as for
standard contracts, is appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly
discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between participants,
or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options
marketplace.
    Under the proposed fees structure for Minis, Customers will be
assessed no fees for Mini transactions, just as no Customer fees are
assessed for transactions in the standard-sized Mini Classes. Mini
volume will be excluded from counting towards the Exchange's Volume
Incentive Program (``VIP''). As noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange
to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for
standard options. This, coupled with the lower per-contract transaction
fees charged to other market participants, makes it impractical to
offer Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') a credit for Customer
electronic Mini volume they transact. As there is no fee assessed to
Customer Mini transactions, such transactions will not qualify towards
the Exchange's Customer Large Trade Discount.
    CBOE Market-Makers, DPMs, E-DPMs and LMMs (together, ``CBOE Market-
Makers'') will be assessed a $0.02 fee for manual and electronic Mini
transactions (including CFLEX AIM transactions). It is difficult to
compare the proposed $0.02 amount to the amount assessed to CBOE
Market-Makers for standard options transactions, as that amount can
differ depending on which tier each CBOE Market-Maker reaches in the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale (though it is less than \1/10\ the fee
assessed at the lowest tier of the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale for
standard options transactions).\4\ The Exchange wishes to assess such a
fee of $0.02 to CBOE Market-Makers in order to encourage them to quote
often and aggressively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale''
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a Marketing Fee collection of $0.02 for Penny Pilot
Classes and $0.06 for all other classes (these amounts are slightly
less than 1/10 of the charges incurred by CBOE Market-Makers for
standard options contract transactions) will also apply under the same
conditions under which a Marketing Fee collection applies to standard
options contract transactions. Unlike for standard options contract
transactions, no Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') Step-Up Rebate will be
given to Market-Makers for Mini transactions. As noted earlier, the
cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is
the same as for standard options. This, coupled with the lower per-
contract transaction fees charged, makes it impractical to offer CBOE
Market-Makers the HAL Step-Up Rebate. As such, Minis shall be excluded
from the HAL Step-Up Rebate. Mini transactions will also be excluded
from counting towards the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale (as the fee
levels at all tiers in the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale are all
higher than the $0.02 fee for Market-Maker Mini transactions).
    Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders will be assessed
a $0.03 fee for manual and electronic

Mini transactions (including CFLEX AIM transactions). This fee amount
is slightly more than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options
transactions for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary executions.
As noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders
and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options, and therefore,
in some situations (including for Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary orders), the Exchange must assess a Minis fee of more than
\1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options transactions. Mini
volume will not count towards the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders (the
``Proprietary Products Sliding Scale''). As noted earlier, the cost to
the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same
as for standard options. Further, as the measuring stick to determine
whether a Clearing Trading Permit Holder reaches new tiers on the
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is the number of contracts traded,
it would be difficult for the Exchange to count Mini contracts, since
they effectively function as \1/10\ of a regular standard options
contract. Therefore, the Exchange does not wish to count Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders towards the Proprietary
Products Sliding Scale, and therefore Minis will be excluded from
counting towards the Proprietary Products Sliding Scale.
    The Exchange proposes to count Mini fees towards the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in all products except SPX, SPXpm, SRO,
VIX or other volatility indexes, OEX or XEO (the ``Fee Cap'') in the
same manner that the Fee Cap applies to standard options
transactions.\5\ This will help Clearing Trading Permit Holders to
reach this cap on their fees. Further, since the Fee Cap is calculated
based on fees, it makes sense to count Minis fees towards the Fee Cap.
Further, the Exchange does recognize that Clearing Trading Permit
Holders can be an important source of liquidity when they facilitate
their own customers' trading activity and, as such, the waiver of
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees, as
described in Footnote 11 to the CBOE Fees Schedule, for facilitation
orders \6\ executed in AIM, open outcry, or as a QCC or FLEX
transaction, will continue to apply to facilitation orders in Minis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 11, for more details on the
Fee Cap.
    \6\ ``Facilitation orders'' are defined for this purpose in
Footnote 11 as ``any paired order in which a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (F) origin code is contra to any other origin code, provided
the same executing broker and clearing firm are on both sides of the
order''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has caps on transaction fees that apply to merger
strategies and short stock interest strategies as well as to reversals,
conversions and jelly roll strategies (the ``Strategy Caps'').\7\ The
Exchange proposes to count Mini fees towards the Strategy Caps in the
same manner that the Strategy Caps apply to standard options
transactions. This will help market participants reach these caps on
their fees. Further, since the Strategy Caps are calculated based on
fees, it makes sense to count Minis fees towards the Strategy Caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 13, for more details on the
Strategy Caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broker-Dealers and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers (``Away
Market-Makers'') will be assessed a $0.04 fee for manual and electronic
Mini transactions (including CFLEX AIM transactions). This fee amount
is less than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options
transactions for electronic Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder
Market-Maker executions, though more than \1/10\ the amount assessed
for standard options transactions for manual Broker-Dealer and Non-
Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker executions. The Exchange determined
to establish a simple, flat fee for manual and electronic Broker-Dealer
and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker Mini transactions, and the
extent to which the Mini fee amount is more than \1/10\ the amount
assessed for standard options transactions for manual Broker-Dealer and
Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker executions is necessary to make
up for the extent to which the Mini fee amount is less than \1/10\ the
amount assessed for standard options transactions for electronic
Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker executions.
    Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office orders
will be subject to a $0.03 fee for manual and electronic Mini
transactions (including CFLEX AIM transactions). This amount is \1/10\
the amount assessed for standard options transactions for electronic
Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office executions,
though slightly more than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard
options transactions for manual Professional, Voluntary Professional,
and Joint Back-Office executions (which is $0.25). As noted earlier,
the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis
is the same as for standard options. As such, the Exchange determined
to base the Mini transaction fee amount for Professional, Voluntary
Professional, and Joint Back-Office orders on the amount assessed for
standard options transactions for electronic Professional, Voluntary
Professional, and Joint Back-Office executions (also, the Exchange does
not at this time wish to assess Mini transaction fees in sub-penny
increments unless such fee amounts are also assessed in sub-penny
increments for standard options transactions or the fee amounts for
standard options are less than $0.05).
    The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.02 fee for all Mini Qualified
Contingent Cross (``QCC'') transactions (except for Customer Mini QCC
transactions, which, like other Customer Mini transactions, will be
assessed a $0.00 fee). This fee amount is \1/10\ of the $0.20 amount
assessed for standard options QCC transactions (except for CBOE Market-
Maker QCC transactions, which are subject to the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale; $0.20 falls within the range of fees assessed under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, and the Exchange desires to make
determining Mini fees simple by merely assessing a flat, non-moving
amount for Mini QCC fees).
    The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.02 fee for all Mini AIM
Agency/Primary orders (except Customer AIM Agency/Primary orders,
which, like other Customer Mini transactions will be assessed a $0.00
fee).). This fee amount is \1/10\ of the $0.20 amount assessed for
standard options AIM Agency/Primary orders (except for CBOE Market-
Maker AIM Agency/Primary transactions, which are subject to the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale; $0.20 falls within the range of fees
assessed under the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, and the Exchange
desires to make determining Mini fees simple by merely assessing a
flat, non-moving amount for Mini AIM Agency/Primary fees).
    The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.01 fee for Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, Away Market-Maker, and
Professional/Voluntary Professional/Joint Back-Office Mini AIM Contra
executions. Standard options AIM Contra execution fees for these market
participants are $0.05. While the $0.01 amount is more than \1/10\ of
the $0.05 amount assessed for standard options AIM Contra executions,
the Exchange notes again that the cost to the Exchange to process
quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options.
Further, as the Exchange desires not to list and assess sub-penny fee
increments on its

main rate tables (in order to keep such tables simple), and as the
nearest whole penny increment to \1/10\ of $0.05 is $0.01, it makes
sense to assess that amount. The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.02
fee for CBOE Market-Maker Mini AIM Contra executions. The Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale that applies fees to CBOE Market-Maker
transactions (including AIM Contra executions), has a first fee tier of
$0.25. A fee amount of $0.02 for Mini AIM Contra executions is less
than \1/10\ the amount that can be assessed to CBOE Market-Makers for
standard options AIM Contra executions. The Exchange proposes to assess
a fee of $0.00 for Customer Mini AIM Contra executions, as this is the
amount assessed to all other Customer Mini executions. The statement in
Footnote 18 that the AIM Contra Execution Fee will apply to AIM Contra
executions ``instead of the applicable standard transaction fee except
if the applicable standard transaction fee is lower than $.05 per
contract, in which case the applicable standard transaction fee will
apply'' will not apply to Minis, as the applicable standard transaction
fees for Minis will be lower than $0.05 per contract.
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.0085 per contract Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\8\ The Exchange is proposing to charge the
same rate for transactions in Mini options, $0.0085 per contract,
since, as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process quotes, orders,
trades and the necessary regulatory surveillance programs and
procedures in Minis are the same as for standard option contracts. As
such, the Exchange feels that it is appropriate to charge the ORF at
the same rate as the standard option contract. The Exchange also
assesses a DPM and Firm Designated Examining Authority Fee (the ``DEA
Fee'') of $0.60 per $1,000 of gross revenue.\9\ Any revenue that comes
from Mini trading would count towards the DEA Fee (as does other
revenue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Regulatory Fees'' table.
    \9\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Regulatory Fees'' table for more
details on the DEA Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, because, as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process
quotes, orders, trades and the necessary regulatory surveillance
programs and procedures in Minis are the same as for standard option
contracts, the Exchange will assess to Mini transactions the same PULSe
Workstation Away-Market Routing, Away-Market Routing Intermediary, and
CBOE/CBSX Routing fees (the ``PULSe Workstation Fees''),\10\ Trade
Processing Services fees,\11\ and PAR Official Fees \12\ as are
assessed to standard options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``PULSe Workstation'' section of
the ``Facility Fees'' table.
    \11\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Trade Processing Services''
Table.
    \12\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``PAR Official Fees in All Other
Classes'' section of the ``Floor Brokerage and PAR Official Fees''
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to comply with the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan''), the Exchange uses various
means of accessing better priced interest located on other exchanges
and assesses fees associated with the execution of orders routed to
other exchanges.\13\ For Customers, these fees involve, to some extent,
the passing-through of the actual transaction fee assessed by the
exchange(s) to which the order was routed, while for non-Customers, a
set amount is assessed. These fees are designed to help recover the
Exchange's costs in routing orders to other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and broker-
dealers will be assessing the same charges for Minis as are assessed to
standard options. Further, the Exchange's costs for routing Minis
through to other exchanges will be the same as the Exchange's costs for
routing standard options to other exchanges. As such, the Exchange
intends apply to Mini options the same Linkage Fees structure as
applies to standard options. The Exchange notes that participants can
avoid the Linkage Fees in several ways. First, they can simply route to
the exchange with the best priced interest. The Exchange, in
recognition of the fact that markets can move while orders are in
flight, also offers participants the ability to utilize order types
that do not route to other exchanges. Specifically, the Immediate-or-
Cancel Order (``IOC Order'') is one such order that would never route
to another exchange. For all these reasons, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to apply to Mini options the same Linkage Fees structure as
applies to standard options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Linkage Fees'' table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has Order Router Subsidy (``ORS'') Programs that state
that CBOE may enter into subsidy arrangements with Trading Permit
Holders (``TPHs'') or broker-dealers that are not CBOE Trading Permit
Holders (``Non-CBOE TPHs'') that provide certain routing
functionalities to other CBOE TPHs, Non-CBOE TPHs and/or use such
functionalities themselves. Under the ORS, participating TPHs or
participating Non-CBOE TPHs (``participants'') will receive a payment
from CBOE for every executed contract for orders routed to CBOE through
that participant's system to subsidize their costs associated with
providing order routing functionalities.\14\ The Exchange offers a
subsidy of $0.04 for the simple and complex ORS Programs ($0.03 for
participants that elect for the Exchange to perform certain additional
marketing services on the participant's behalf (the ``Marketing Service
Election'')). The Exchange proposes to offer subsidies for Minis under
the ORS Programs that are \1/10\ the amounts offered for standard
options ($0.004 for simple and complex Minis, with $0.003 for Minis
under the Marketing Service Election). Under the simple ORS Program, a
participant may elect to have CBOE perform the service of billing other
CBOE TPHs with respect to the use of the participant's router (the
``Billing Election''). A participant that elects to have CBOE perform
this service would pay CBOE a service fee of one percent of the fees
collected by CBOE for that TPH. The Exchange proposes to apply the
Billing Election to Minis in the same way it applies to standard
options. For billing purposes, Minis fees will be rounded to the
nearest $0.01 using standard rounding rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, ``Order Router Subsidy Programs''
table for more details on the ORS Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\15\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange noted earlier that, while Minis have a smaller
exercise and assignment value due to the reduced number of shares to be
delivered as compared to standard option contracts, and despite the
smaller exercise and assignment value of a Mini, the cost to the
Exchange to process quotes and orders in Minis, perform regulatory
surveillance and retain quotes and orders for archival purposes is the
same as for a standard contract. This leaves the Exchange in a position
of trying to strike the right balance of fees applicable to Minis--too
low and the costs of processing Mini quotes and orders will necessarily
cause the Exchange to either raise fees for

everyone or only for participants trading Minis; too high and
participants may be deterred from trading Minis, leaving the Exchange
less able to recoup costs associated with development of the product,
which is designed to offer investors a way to take less risk in high
dollar securities. Given these realities, the Exchange believes that
adopting fees for Minis that are in some cases lower than standard
contracts, and in other cases the same as for standard contracts, is
appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly discriminatory and not
burdensome on competition between participants, or between the Exchange
and other exchanges in the listed options market place. In the case of
most trade related charges, the Exchange has decided to offer lower
per-contract fees to participants as part of trying to strike the right
balance between recovering costs associated with trading Minis and
encouraging use of the new Mini option contracts, which are designed to
allow investors to reduce risk in high dollar underlying securities.
    The Exchange proposal to charge Customers $0.00 per contract is
reasonable, as Customers have long traded for free all options on the
Exchange. This $0.00 fee for Customer Mini executions attracts Customer
order flow to the Exchange, which is beneficial to all other
participants on the Exchange who generally seek to trade with Customer
order flow and who benefit from the increased volume and trading
opportunities. The proposed fee of $.00 per contract is the same fee
charged to Customer orders in standard option contracts, which is an
effective fee on the Exchange and has not been determined to be
inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. Further, the options
marketplace has a history of offering preferential pricing to
Customers. Finally, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') proposes to charge
Customers $0.00 for some Customer Mini transactions.\17\ Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed Customer pricing for Minis is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SR-NYSEArca-2013-25, available at http://www.nyse.com/nysenotices/nysearca/rule-filings/pdf?file_no=SR-NYSEArca-2013-25&seqnum=1 (the ``Arca filing''), page 5, which proposes to assess
a fee of $0.00 for manual Customer executions in Minis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that excluding Customer Mini transactions
from counting towards the VIP is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. First, as noted above, the
Exchange's cost to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the
same as for standard options. Given the overall lower expected revenues
from Mini options, it is reasonable to exempt Mini option volumes from
qualifying for the VIP credits paid on standard option contracts. It is
also equitable, since paying the rebate on Mini option volumes would
likely necessitate either reducing the VIP credits paid under the VIP,
or raising other participant fees. It is not unfairly discriminatory,
as it will apply equally to all Customer executions in Mini options.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess to CBOE Market-
Makers a $0.02 fee for manual and electronic Mini transactions
(including CFLEX AIM transactions) is reasonable. It is difficult to
compare the proposed $0.02 amount to the amount assessed to CBOE
Market-Makers for standard options transactions, as that amount can
differ depending on which tier each CBOE Market-Maker reaches in the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale. However, $0.02 is less than \1/10\
the fee assessed at the lowest tier of the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale for standard options transactions. The Exchange believes that
these CBOE Market-Maker Mini fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, they will apply equally
to all CBOE Market-Makers. Second, the Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fee amounts
to CBOE Market-Makers than to some other market participants because
CBOE Market-Makers have obligations, such as quoting obligations, that
other market participants do not possess. Further, these lower fees are
intended to encourage Market-Makers to quote aggressively and more
often, which provides more trading opportunities for all market
participants. Finally, the proposed $0.02 CBOE Market-Maker fee for
Minis is equivalent to Arca's proposed NYSE Arca Market Maker Mini fee
for manual executions, and significantly lower than Arca's proposed
Market Maker Mini fees for Taker electronic executions ($0.07 in Penny
Pilot classes and $0.10 in non-Penny Pilot classes).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Arca filing, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposal to assess to CBOE
Market-Makers a Marketing Fee collection of $0.02 for Penny Pilot
Classes and $0.06 for all other classes is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because these amounts are slightly less
than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options. The Exchange also
believes that this proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply to all CBOE Market-Makers. The
Exchange believes that not providing the HAL Step-Up Rebate is
reasonable because it merely prevents CBOE Market-Makers trading Minis
from receiving a rebate; it does not impose another fee. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not
provide the HAL Step-Up Rebate to CBOE Market-Makers trading Minis when
the HAL Step-Up Rebate is provided to CBOE Market-Makers trading
standard options products because, as stated previously, the cost to
the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same
as for standard options. This, coupled with the lower per-contract
transaction fees charged, makes it impractical to offer CBOE Market-
Makers the HAL Step-Up Rebate. Further, no CBOE Market-Maker will
receive the HAL Step-Up Rebate for Minis transactions. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to not count Minis transactions towards
the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale because this merely prevents
Market-Makers from being able to receive reduced fees; this does not
impose a greater fee. The Exchange believes that this is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the amounts in the tiers of the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale are all higher than the $0.02 fee for
Market-Maker Mini transactions. Further, no Market-Maker Mini
transactions will count towards or qualify for the Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale.
    The Exchange believes that assessing a $0.03 fee for manual and
electronic Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Mini executions
is reasonable because, while this amount is slightly more than \1/10\
the amount assessed for standard options Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary executions, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes,
orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options, and
therefore, in some situations (including for Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary orders), the Exchange must assess a Minis fee of
more than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options transactions.
This amount is still significantly less than the amount assessed for
standard options Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary executions,
despite the fact that the cost to the Exchange to process quotes,
orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options. The
Exchange believes that this fee is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be assessed to all qualifying manual

and electronic Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary executions in
Minis. Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary executions than to those of other market participants (such
as Broker-Dealers and Away Market-Makers) 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. Finally, the amount of the proposed fees for Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary executions in Minis is significantly lower
than the $0.09 fee that is proposed to be assessed by Arca for Mini
Firm manual executions and electronic Penny Pilot Taker executions (as
well as significantly lower than Arca's proposed $0.12 Taker fee for
Firm Mini electronic non-Penny Pilot Taker executions).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Arca filing, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to not count Mini volume
towards the Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is reasonable in light
of the Exchange's desire to fund the costs associated with Minis with
revenues only from those participants who trade them. As noted earlier,
the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis
is the same as for standard options. Including Mini volume towards the
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale might necessitate raising costs for
other market participants; therefore, the Exchange believes that the
exclusion of Minis from the Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is both
reasonable and equitable. Because this exclusion will apply to all
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Mini orders, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Further,
as the measuring stick to determine whether a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder reaches new tiers on the Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is
the number of contracts traded, it would be difficult for the Exchange
to count Mini contracts, since they effectively function as \1/10\ of a
regular standard options contract.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to count Minis fees towards
the Fee Cap is reasonable because it will help Clearing Trading Permit
Holders to reach this cap on their fees. Further, since the Fee Cap is
calculated based on fees, it makes sense to count Minis fees towards
the Fee Cap. The Exchange believes this is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Minis fees will count towards the Fee Cap in the
same manner that standard options transaction fees count towards the
Fee Cap. Further, Arca proposes to exclude Minis fees from its $75,000
per month cap on Firm Proprietary fees,\20\ making the Exchange's
proposal to count Minis fees towards the Fee Cap competitively
advantageous and more attractive to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Arca filing, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to count Minis fees towards
the Strategy Caps is reasonable because it will help market
participants to reach these caps on their fees. Further, since the
Strategy Caps are calculated based on fees, it makes sense to count
Minis fees towards the Strategy Caps. The Exchange believes this is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Minis fees will count
towards the Strategy Caps in the same manner that standard options
transaction fees count towards the Strategy Caps. Further, Arca
proposes to exclude Minis fees from its Limit of Fees on Options
Strategy Executions, which is a similar program to the Exchange's
Strategy Caps,\21\ making the Exchange's proposal to count Minis fees
towards the Strategy Caps competitively advantageous and more
attractive to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Arca filing, page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to waive Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees for Mini facilitation orders
executed in AIM, open outcry, or as a QCC or FLEX transaction is
reasonable because it will exempt such orders from being assessed fees.
The Exchange believes that this is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because such orders are exempt from fees for standard
options transactions. Further, the Exchange recognizes that Clearing
Trading Permit Holders can be an important source of liquidity when
they facilitate their own customers' trading activity. Such trades add
transparency and promote price discovery to the benefit of all market
participants. Moreover, the exemption from fees for Mini facilitation
orders executed in AIM, open outcry, or as a QCC or FLEX transaction
will apply to all such orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.04 fee for Broker-
Dealers and Away Market-Makers for manual and electronic Mini
transactions (including CFLEX AIM transactions) is reasonable. This fee
amount is significantly less than the fee assessed for standard options
contracts, and indeed is less than \1/10\ the amount assessed for
standard options transactions for electronic Broker-Dealer and Non-
Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker executions, though more than \1/10\
the amount assessed for standard options transactions for manual
Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker executions.
The Exchange determined to establish a simple, flat fee for manual and
electronic Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker
Mini transactions, and the extent to which the Mini fee amount is more
than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options transactions for
manual Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker
executions is necessary to make up for the extent to which the Mini fee
amount is less than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options
transactions for electronic Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading Permit Holder
Market-Maker executions, as well as to account for the fact that, as
noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and
trades in Minis is the same as for standard options. In this regard,
the proposed fee amount is reasonable and also equitable in that it
allows the Exchange to offer this innovative product to investors
without raising fees for other investors who may have no interest in
trading Minis. Further, the Exchange believes this fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all Broker-Dealers
and Away Market-Makers. Also, the Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess higher fees to
Broker-Dealers and Away Market-Makers because they do not have some of
the obligations that other market participants, such as CBOE Market-
Makers and Clearing Trading Permit Holders, may have. Finally, the
proposed $0.04 fee amount is significantly lower than the $0.09 fee
proposed by Arca for Mini Broker Dealer manual executions and
electronic Penny Pilot Taker executions (as well as significantly lower
than Arca's proposed $0.12 Broker Dealer Taker fee for Mini electronic
non-Penny Pilot Taker executions).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Arca filing, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess Professional,
Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office orders a $0.03 fee for
manual and electronic Mini transactions (including CFLEX AIM
transactions) is reasonable. This amount is \1/10\ the amount assessed
for standard options transactions for electronic Professional,
Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office executions, though
slightly more than \1/10\ the amount assessed for standard options
transactions for manual

Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office executions
(which is $0.25). As noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to process
quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options.
As such, the Exchange determined to base the Mini transaction fee
amount for Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office
orders on the amount assessed for standard options transactions for
electronic Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office
executions. Further, this amount is significantly less than the amount
assessed for Professional, Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-
Office executions for standard options. In this regard, the proposed
fee amount is reasonable and also equitable in that it allows the
Exchange to offer this innovative product to investors without raising
fees for other investors who may have no interest in trading Minis. The
Exchange believes that this proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be assessed to all Professional,
Voluntary Professional, and Joint Back-Office Mini transactions.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess a $0.02 fee for
all Mini QCC transactions (except for Customer Mini QCC transactions,
which, like other Customer Mini transactions, will be assessed a $0.00
fee) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
this fee amount is \1/10\ of the $0.20 amount assessed for standard
options QCC transactions (except for CBOE Market-Maker QCC
transactions, which are subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale; $0.20 falls within the range of fees assessed under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, and the Exchange desires to make
determining Mini fees simple by merely assessing a flat, non-moving
amount for Mini QCC fees). The Exchange further believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a $0.02 fee for all
Mini QCC transactions (except Customer Mini QCC transactions) because
all market participants will be paying this same amount (except for
Customers) for Mini QCC transactions. The Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a $0.00 fee for
Customer Mini QCC transactions because this is the same amount being
assessed to other Customer Mini transactions, and because this $0.00
fee for Customer Mini executions attracts Customer order flow to the
Exchange, which is beneficial to all other participants on the Exchange
who generally seek to trade with Customer order flow and who benefit
from the increased volume and trading opportunities. Further, the
proposed fee of $.00 per contract is the same fee charged to Customer
QCC orders in standard option contracts, which is an effective fee on
the Exchange and has not been determined to be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. Also, the options marketplace has a history of offering
preferential pricing to Customers. Finally, the proposed Mini QCC fee
amounts are significantly lower than the $0.05 fee (per side) for Mini
QCCs proposed by Arca.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Arca filing, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess a $0.02 fee for
all Mini AIM Agency/Primary transactions (except for Customer Mini AIM
Agency/Primary transactions, which, like other Customer Mini
transactions will be assessed a $0.00 fee) is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because this fee amount is \1/10\ of the
$0.20 amount assessed for standard options AIM Agency/Primary
transactions (except for CBOE Market-Maker AIM Agency/Primary
transactions, which are subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale; $0.20 falls within the range of fees assessed under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, and the Exchange desires to make
determining Mini fees simple by merely assessing a flat, non-moving
amount for Mini AIM Agency/Primary fees). The Exchange further believes
that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a $0.02
fee for all Mini AIM Agency/Primary transactions (except Customer Mini
AIM Agency/Primary transactions) because all market participants will
be paying this same amount (except for Customers) for Mini AIM Agency/
Primary transactions. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess a $0.00 fee for Customer Mini AIM
Agency/Primary transactions because this is the same amount being
assessed to other Customer Mini transactions, and because this $0.00
fee for Customer Mini executions attracts Customer order flow to the
Exchange, which is beneficial to all other participants on the Exchange
who generally seek to trade with Customer order flow and who benefit
from the increased volume and trading opportunities. Further, the
proposed fee of $.00 per contract is the same fee charged to Customer
AIM Agency/Primary orders in standard option contracts, which is an
effective fee on the Exchange and has not been determined to be
inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. Finally, the options
marketplace has a history of offering preferential pricing to
Customers.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to assess a $0.01 fee for
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, Away Market-
Maker, and Professional/Voluntary Professional/Joint Back-Office Mini
AIM Contra executions is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because, while the $0.01 amount is more than \1/10\ of
the $0.05 amount assessed for standard options AIM Contra executions,
the Exchange notes again that the cost to the Exchange to process
quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard options.
Further, as the Exchange desires not to list and assess sub-penny fee
increments on its main rate tables (in order to keep such tables
simple), and as the nearest whole penny increment to \1/10\ of $0.05 is
$0.01, it makes sense to assess that amount. The Exchange believes that
the proposal to assess a $0.02 fee for CBOE Market-Maker Mini AIM
Contra executions is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale that
applies fees to CBOE Market-Maker transactions (including AIM Contra
executions), has a first fee tier of $0.25. A fee amount of $0.02 for
Mini AIM Contra executions is less than \1/10\ the amount that can be
assessed to CBOE Market-Makers for standard options AIM Contra
executions. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess a $0.00 fee for Customer Mini AIM
Contra transactions because this is the same amount being assessed to
other Customer Mini transactions, and because this $0.00 fee for
Customer Mini executions attracts Customer order flow to the Exchange,
which is beneficial to all other participants on the Exchange who
generally seek to trade with Customer order flow and who benefit from
the increased volume and trading opportunities. Further, the proposed
fee of $.00 per contract is the same fee charged to Customer AIM Contra
orders in standard option contracts, which is an effective fee on the
Exchange and has not been determined to be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. Finally, the options marketplace has a history of
offering preferential pricing to Customers. The Exchange believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply different Mini
AIM Contra fees to different market participants for the reasons
described above. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed Mini
AIM Contra fees are equitable and

not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants within the
same market participant category will be assessed the same fee amounts
(meaning that all for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
orders, Broker-Dealers, Away Market-Makers, and Professional/Voluntary
Professional/Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed a $0.01 fee, all
CBOE Market-Makers will be assessed a $0.02 fee, and all Customers will
be assessed a $0.00 fee).
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess the same ORF
amount to Minis as are assessed to standard options is reasonable
because, as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process quotes, orders,
trades and the necessary regulatory surveillance programs and
procedures in Minis are the same as for standard option contracts. As
such, the Exchange feels that it is appropriate to charge the ORF at
the same rate as the standard option contract. Further, the Exchange
notes that the cost to perform surveillance to ensure compliance with
various Exchange and industry-wide rules is no different for a Mini
option than it is for a standard option contract. Reducing the ORF for
Mini options could result in a higher ORF for standard options. As
such, the Exchange currently believes that the appropriate approach is
to treat both Minis and standard options the same with respect to the
amount of the ORF that is being charged. The proposed ORF for Minis is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the same ORF amount
is currently assessed to standard options. Further, all Minis will be
assessed the ORF. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to count revenue from Mini
trading towards a DPM or Firm's DEA Fee because revenue from Mini
trading is revenue, and other revenue counts towards the DEA Fee. The
Exchange also believes that this is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply to all market participants to whom
the DEA Fee apply.
    The Exchange believes that subjecting Minis to the same amounts as
standard options for purposes of PULSe Workstation Fees, Trade
Processing Services fees and PAR Official fees is reasonable because
the costs of operating and maintaining the PULSe Workstations, Trade
Processing Services and PAR workstations for Mini transactions are the
same as for standard options transactions. This is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the same fee amounts will be assessed
for Minis as for standard options, and because such fees will apply to
all Mini transactions.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to treat Mini options the
same as standard options for purposes of the Linkage Fees is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following
reasons. The Linkage Fees are designed to help recover the Exchange's
costs in routing orders to other exchanges. The Exchange believes that
the OCC and broker-dealers will be assessing the same charges for Minis
as are assessed to standard options. Further, the Exchange's costs for
routing Minis through to other exchanges will be the same as the
Exchange's costs for routing standard options to other exchanges. As
such, the Exchange believes that it makes sense apply to Mini options
the same Linkage Fees structure as applies to standard options. The
Exchange notes that participants can avoid the Linkage Fees in several
ways. First, they can simply route to the exchange with the best priced
interest. The Exchange, in recognition of the fact that markets can
move while orders are in flight, also offers participants the ability
to utilize order types that do not route to other exchanges.
Specifically, the IOC Order is one such order that would never route to
another exchange. For all these reasons, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and equitable to apply to Mini options the same Linkage Fees
structure as applies to standard options. Further, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to treat
Mini options the same as standard options for purposes of the Linkage
Fees for that tautological reason; Mini options will be treated the
same as standard options for the purposes of Linkage Fees. Finally,
since the Linkage Fees will apply to all participants in Minis as they
apply for standard options, and because such Linkage Fees have not
previously been found to be unreasonable, inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory, the Exchange believes this to be the case for Minis as
well.
    The Exchange believes that the Mini ORS Program subsidy amounts
proposed are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they are \1/10\ the amounts that apply to standard options. The
Exchange believes that applying the Billing Election to Minis in the
same manner that it applies to standard options is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for that tautological reason;
it will apply to Minis in the same manner that it applies to standard
options. The Exchange also believes that the proposed adaptations to
the ORS Programs for Minis is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because such adaptations will apply to all participants.

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. The proposed changes are
designed to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee
Schedule with respect to the fees applicable to Minis.
    The Exchange believes that adopting fees for Minis that are in some
cases lower than for standard contracts, but in other cases the same as
for standard contracts, strikes the appropriate balance between fees
applicable to standard contracts versus fees applicable to Minis, and
will not impose a burden on competition among various market
participants on the Exchange not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the Exchange
proposes assessing different fee amounts to different Exchange market
participants, the Exchange believes that such differing assessments
will not impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket competition due to
the different natures of such market participants and different
obligations imposed on such market participants (as described above).
Further, in the cases in which some market participants are assessed
lower fee amounts than others, the Exchange often does so with the
intention of attracting greater trading from those market participants,
and the increased volume and trading opportunities benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees structure for Mini
options will not impose an unnecessary burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange has shown in a number of places in this
proposed rule change that the Exchange's fees are at least competitive
with, if not preferable to, comparable fees at other exchanges. As
such, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees structure for Minis
will increase intermarket competition, which benefits all market
participants. To the extent that market participants on other exchanges
may be attracted to trade on CBOE by the proposed fees structure for
Mini options, they are always welcome to become market participants on
CBOE.
    As Minis are a new product being introduced into the listed options
marketplace, the Exchange is unable at this time to absolutely
determine the impact that the fees and rebates proposed herein will
have on trading in

Minis. That said, however, the Exchange believes that the rates
proposed for Minis would not impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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 \24\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \25\
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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \25\ 17 C.F.R. [sic] 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-038. 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-2013-038, and should be
submitted on or before April 25, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07884 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2467-2469]
[DOCID:fr15ja10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19608]
RIN 2126-AB26

Hours of Service

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

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session
(in addition to those identified in a Federal Register notice on
January 5, 2010) to solicit comments and information on potential
hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. Specifically, the Agency wants to
know what factors, issues, and data it should be aware of as it
prepares to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on HOS
requirements for property-carrying commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers. This session will be held in the Davenport, Iowa area. The
listening session will allow interested persons to present comments,
views, and relevant research on revisions FMCSA should consider in its
forthcoming rulemaking. All comments will be transcribed and placed in
the rulemaking docket for the FMCSA's consideration.

DATES: This listening session will be held on Thursday, January 28,
2010, in Davenport, Iowa. It will begin at 1 p.m. local time and end at
9 p.m., or earlier, if all participants wishing to express their views
have done so.

ADDRESSES: The January 28 meeting will be held in Davenport, Iowa, at
the Comfort Inn Hotel and Suites, 8300 Northwest Boulevard, Davenport,
Iowa 52806<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2004-19608 using any of the following
methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the

online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The online Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments online.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For special accommodations for this
listening session, such as sign language interpretation, contact Mr.
David Miller, Regulatory Development Division,<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by January 20, 2010, to allow us to arrange for such
services. There is no guarantee that interpreter services requested on
short notice can be provided. For information concerning the hours-of-
service rules, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier
Operations Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 26, 2009, Public Citizen, et al. (Petitioners) and FMCSA
entered into a settlement agreement under which the parties agreed to
seek to hold Petitioners' petition for judicial review of the November
19, 2008 Final Rule on drivers' hours of service in abeyance pending
the publication of an NPRM. The settlement agreement states that FMCSA
will submit the draft NPRM to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
within nine months, and publish a Final Rule within 21 months, of the
date of the settlement agreement. The current rule will remain in
effect during the rulemaking proceedings.
    On January 5, 2010, FMCSA announced its plans to hold three public
listening sessions concerning the HOS rulemaking (75 FR 285). FMCSA
announces a fourth public listening session to solicit written and/or
oral comments and information on potential revisions to the HOS rule.
The Agency will provide further opportunity for public comment when the
NPRM is published.
    This listening session will be held within walking distance of the
Flying J Travel Plaza, 8200 Northwest Boulevard near the intersection
of Interstate Highway 80 at Exit 292, Davenport, Iowa 52806 (563-386-
7710).

II. Meeting Participation

    This listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks
will be limited to 10 minutes each. The public may submit material to
the FMCSA staff at each session for inclusion in the public docket,
FMCSA-2004-19608.

III. Questions for Discussion During the Listening Sessions

    In preparing their comments, meeting participants should consider
the following questions about possible alternatives to the current HOS
requirements. These scenarios are merely set forth for discussion;
FMCSA will not necessarily include them in an NPRM but would request
similar information and data in an NPRM. Answers to these questions
should be based upon the experience of the participants and any data or
information they can share with FMCSA.

A. Rest and On-Duty Time

    1. Would mandatory short rest periods during the work day improve
driver alertness in the operation of a CMV? How long should these rest
periods be? At what point in the duty cycle or drive-time would short
rest periods provide the greatest benefit? What are the unintended
consequences if these short rest periods are mandatory? Should the on-
duty period be extended to allow for mandatory rest periods?
    2. If rest or other breaks from driving improve alertness, could a
driver who chooses to take specified minimum breaks be given scheduling
flexibility--the ability to borrow an hour from another driving day
once a week, for example--if that flexibility would not increase safety
risks or adversely impact driver health?
    3. How many hours per day and per week would be safe and healthy
for a truck driver to work?
    4. Would an hours-of-service rule that allows drivers to drive an
hour less when driving overnight improve driver alertness and improve
safety? Are there any adverse consequences that could arise from the
implementation of a separate night time hours-of-service regulation?

B. Restart to the 60- and 70-Hour Rule

    1. Is a 34-consecutive-hour off-duty period long enough to provide
restorative sleep regardless of the number of hours worked prior to the
restart? Is the answer different for a driver working a night or
irregular schedule?
    2. What would be the impact of mandating two overnight off-duty
periods, e.g., from midnight to 6 a.m., as a component of a restart
period? Would such a rule present additional enforcement challenges?
    3. How is the current restart provision being used by drivers? Do
drivers restart their calculations after 34 consecutive hours or do
drivers take longer periods of time for the restart?

C. Sleeper Berth Use

    1. If sleeper-berth time were split into two periods, what is the
minimum time in each period necessary to provide restorative sleep?
    2. Could the 14-hour on-duty limitation be extended by the amount
of some additional sleeper-berth time without detrimental effect on
highway safety? What would be the appropriate length of such a limited
sleeper-berth rest period?

D. Loading and Unloading Time

    1. What effect has the fixed 14-hour driving ``window'' had on the
time drivers spend waiting to load or unload? Have shippers and
receivers changed their practices to reduce the amount of time drivers
spend waiting to load or unload?

E. General

    1. Are there aspects of the current rule that do not increase
safety risks or adversely impact driver health and that should be
preserved?

    Issued on: January 13, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-826 Filed 1-13-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P