[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29626-29628]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600;
FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011;
FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 135
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http//www.regulations.gov and/or 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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 135 individuals from the insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR
19435). The public comment period

ended on May 30, 2017, and no comments were received.
    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 135 renewal exemption applications
and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to
exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with
ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
    As of April 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 7852; 79 FR
19798):
Isaias Gomez (IN)
Brandon E. Hamlett (NV)
Douglas F. Keller (MI)
Mark R. Loesel (WI)
Jason E. McAnnally (AL)
Samuel L. Sergio (MA)
Paul M. Shierk (OR)
David W. West (MO)
Eugene R. Zollner II (OH)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 2, 2017, and will expire on April
2, 2019.
    As of April 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, James R. Moretz, Jr. (PA) has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM
from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (70 FR 60875; 71 FR 17159).
    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177. The
exemption is effective as of April 5, 2017, and will expire on April 5,
2019.
    As of April 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 7093; 74 FR
15577):

Daniel J. Conner (PA)
Luis G. Garcia (FL)
Joey M. Godinho (CA)
Gerardo Gonzalez (WI)
Edwin L. Haynie (TX)
Darryl D. Hewitt (CA)
Mark D. Hoag (WA)
Patrick H. Junkins (SC)
Jeffrey D. Moul (SD)
Frank B. Rivett (NY)
Michael L. Wise (IN)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0399. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 6, 2017, and will expire on April
6, 2019.
    As of April 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 75236; 71 FR
17943):
Roy G. Hill (KY)
Anthony D. Izzi (RI)
Kenneth L. Pogue (MO)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22905. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 7, 2017, and will expire on April
7, 2019.
    As of April 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR
26986):
Scott A. Anderson (MN)
Peter A. Breister (WI)
Donald J. Carino (IL)
Marc B. Curtis (NV)
Aaron M. Dixon (SD)
Bradley O. Gibson (TX)
Theodore F. Griffith (MA)
Lawrence E. Handel (OR)
Danny P. Hersh (NE)
Bryan W. Hughes-Gariepy (NY)
James L. Johnson (GA)
Thomas Landis (IL)
Grant L. Lupold (PA)
Nathan R. McGathey (IN)
Mark A. Mesnard (OH)
Gene K. Milburn (ID)
Andrew M. Oliver (MI)
Richard L. Peak (KS)
Anthony P. Reith (PA)
Steven Smith (FL)
Robert L. Snyder (MA)
John H. Spierings (WI)
Robert E. Stokes (WA)
Corey R. Sturm (IN)
Christopher W. Williams (ID)
Robert L. Witt (VT)
Paul G. Wright (CO)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2017, and will expire on April
18, 2019.
    As of April 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 9467; 74 FR
18436):
Scott D. Baroch (MT)
Michael G. Chisum (NM)
Timothy N. Davenport (TN)
Henry S. Glover (TX)
James R. Halliday (NY)
Nathan M. Hennix (ND)
Wilbert E. Isadore (TX)
Eddie J. Nosser (MO)
Joseph C. Perrin III (MN)
Ronald A. Stachura.
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2009-0055. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 22, 2017, and will expire on April
22, 2019.
    As of April 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 14406; 78 FR
24303):

Christopher R. Anderson (MN)
Brent T. Applebury (MO)
Joseph A. Auchterlonie (NH)
Brett D. Bertagnolli (IN)
Brian T. Bofenkamp (WA)
Scott A. Carlson (PA)
John Fityere (NJ)
Ronald A. Heaps (OH)
Martin A. Houts (IA)
Michael T. Kraft (MN)
Kris W. Lindsay (KS)
Edward M. Luczynski (NJ)
John E. Ruth (IL)
Greggory A. Smith (MO)
James M. Torkildson (WI)
Terry R. Washa (NE)
Alfred J. Williams (VA)
Scott B. Wood (ND)
James L. Zore (IN)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0013. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 24, 2017, and will expire on April
24, 2019.
    As of April 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 36 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 11982; 73 FR
22456; 76 FR 9854; 76 FR 9862; 76 FR 22940; 76 FR 22941):

Ryan N. Adams (CA)

Kevin J. Agler (IN)
Michael B. Bessinger (UT)
Douglas D. Brown (WI)
Warren S. Brown (GA)
Roger R. Cabana (ME)
Steven W. Ceckiewicz (WI)
Joseph F. Colbert (PA)
Daniel E. Coufal (NE)
Gregory M. Cox (NY)
Dennis J. Dallmann (MN)
Bruce R. Davis (NJ)
Michael B. Elzey (WY)
Earl S. Fibish (CA)
Todd W. Gillespie (NY)
Omar S. Griffin, Jr. (MN)
Richard E. Grunden (ND)
Mark Hall (NJ)
Michael B. Heuett (ID)
Dennis P. Hohnerlein (GA)
Todd A. Kozemchak (PA)
Chad M. Kunkel (MN)
Paul F. Lanich (PA)
Kenneth L. Lefeld (OH)
Daryl G. Lewis (TX)
Jeffrey S. Lomber (MI)
Joseph G. McDonald (MD)
Alan J. Mitchell (DE)
Raymond P. Mora, Sr. (AZ)
James L. Mynars (MN)
John R. Pile (IN)
Dale A. Roberts (IA)
Richard S. Synakowski (NY)
Bruce K. Thomas (NY)
Kory M. Tobias (IL)
Kevin J. Van Horn (MI)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025. Their exemptions are
effective as of April 25, 2017, and will expire on April 25, 2019.
    As of April 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Spencer J. Olson (ID) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR 26986).
    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. The
exemption is effective as of April 28, 2017, and will expire on April
28, 2019.
    As of April 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 18 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 9399; 72 FR
21316):

Daniel W. Bezdek (OH)
Jason L. Freeseman (IA)
Rusty W. Frost (NM)
Andrew J. Hayek (WI)
Gary L. Koehn (NE)
Edward T. Megee (CA)
Steven T. Moody (AL)
Timothy W. Nelson (MN)
Richard W. Newman (NY)
Jamison P. Noel (IA)
Rex S. Norquist (KS)
Steven B. Novak (CA)
Russell D. Rockefeller (NY)
Scott W. Sheerer (OH)
Richard L. Strange (IA)
Samuel G. Thiel (ND)
Robert J. Varetoni (NJ)
Michael R. Vaupel (KS)
    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2006-26600. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 30, 2017, and will expire on April
30, 2019.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

    Issued on: June 21, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-13617 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11430-11431]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2322-069, 2322-071, 2325-100, 2574-092, 2611-091]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Merimil Limited Partnership,
Hydro-Kennebec, LLC; Revised Procedural Schedule for Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Project Relicense, Interim Species
Protection Plan, and Final Species Protection Plan

    On January 31, 2020, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed an
application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the
8.65-megawatt (MW) Shawmut Hydroelectric Project No. 2322 (Shawmut
Project). On June 1, 2021, in a separate compliance proceeding for the
Shawmut Project, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed an Interim
Species Protection Plan (Interim Plan) for Atlantic salmon and
requested Commission approval to amend the current Shawmut license to
incorporate the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan includes measures to
protect endangered Atlantic salmon until the Commission issues a
decision on the relicense application for the Shawmut Project.
    Also on June 1, 2021, Brookfield Power US Asset Management, LLC
(Brookfield), on behalf of the affiliated licensees for the 6.915-MW
Lockwood Hydroelectric Project No. 2574, 15.433-MW Hydro-Kennebec
Hydroelectric Project No. 2611, and 15.98-MW Weston Hydroelectric
Project No. 2325, filed a Final Species Protection Plan (Final Plan)
for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon and
requested Commission approval to amend the three project licenses to
incorporate the Final Plan. All four projects are located on the
Kennebec River, in Kennebec and Somerset Counties, Maine.
    On November 23, 2021, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to
prepare a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
evaluate the effects of relicensing the Shawmut Project and amending
the licenses of all four projects to incorporate the measures in the
Interim and Final Plans. The notice of intent included a schedule for
preparing a draft and final EIS.
    On September 21, 2022, Brookfield filed supplemental information
for the Final Plan, Interim Plan, and License Application. The filing
includes a delayed mortality analysis for salmon smolts and additional
measures that are intended to improve the downstream survival of
juvenile and adult Atlantic salmon at the four projects. On October 5,
2022, Commission staff noticed the filing and solicited comments.
Numerous comments were filed by stakeholders. The EIS will consider
Brookfield's additional measures and the comments filed in response to
the notice.
    Therefore, by this notice, Commission staff is updating the
procedural schedule for completing a draft and final EIS. The revised
schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Draft EIS........................   August 2023.
Issue Final EIS........................  March 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Matt Cutlip
at (503)

552-2762, or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: February 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03687 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42375-42381]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18939]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81516; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.25, Nullification and Adjustment
of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors

August 31, 2017.
    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 August 29, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.25, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors. The text
of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 (sic).
    The text of the proposed rule change is also 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
Background
    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently adopted a new,
harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related
to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving
erroneous options transactions.\5\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further
discussion. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the
Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further
improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as
their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way
to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not
available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and
industry discussion as well as additional time for development and
implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined
to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary
initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable
rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that
will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical
Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to amend the no valid quotes provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74556 (March 20,
2015), 80 FR 16031 (March 26, 2015) (SR-BATS-2014-067); 81084 (July
6, 2017), 82 FR 32216 (July 12, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-35); See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73884 (December 18, 2014), 79 FR
77557 (December 24, 2014) (the ``Initial Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider
    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as
potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the
``Theoretical Price'' of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of
the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 6.25, if the
applicable option series is traded on at least one other options
exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last
national best bid (``NBB'') just prior to the trade in question with
respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best
offer (``NBO'') just prior to the trade in question with respect to an
erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below
exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as
applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this
NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.
    The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific
situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be
reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there
are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') is determined to be too wide to
be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of
these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available
or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical
Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price,
Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the
prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option
in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of
the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the
option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar
options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and
the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the
Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to
disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options
exchanges.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .08 to
specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required
by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the open, when there
are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In particular, the
Exchange has been working with other options exchanges to identify and
select a reliable third party vendor (``TP Provider'') that would
provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or more
transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 6.25 and the NBBO is
unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 6.25(b). The Exchange
and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC
(``Livevol'') as the TP Provider, as described below. As further
described below, proposed Interpretation and Policy .08 would codify
the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions where the
Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price given by
the TP Provider.
    Pursuant to proposed Interpretation and Policy .08, when the
Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request
Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and
all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this
proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange
by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.\6\
This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options
exchanges will use the same TP Provider. As noted above, the proposed
TP Provider selected by the Exchange and other options exchanges is
Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify this selection in proposed
paragraph (d) to Interpretation and Policy .08. As such, the Exchange
would file a rule proposal and would provide notice to the options
industry of any proposed change to the TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a
streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to
develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service
would satisfy the goals of the initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as
the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives.
Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing
equity and index options market data and analytics services.\7\ The
Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the
options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that
it and all

other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol services.
In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new tool based
on its existing technology and services that will supply Theoretical
Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon request. The
Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data and
surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach to
generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are
incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical
Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate
Theoretical Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by
CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Exchange and
C2 Options Exchange (``C2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a
subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is
unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical
Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However,
the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact
the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is
fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the
limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider,
as described below.
    As proposed, to the extent an Official \8\ of the Exchange believes
that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally
incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to
notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such
Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction
of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official
received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series
that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10
because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official
would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation
and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate
action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may
potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the
Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also
proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the
TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated
Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the
reason for the request.\9\ Although not directly addressed by the
proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges
once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of
the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is
available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider
to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other
options exchanges.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the
Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is
trained in the application of Rule 6.25.
    \9\ See proposed paragraph (b) to Interpretation and Policy .08.
    \10\ The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the
Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its
determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to
Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a
subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent
company of the Exchange and multiple other options exchanges. The
Exchange expects Livevol to calculate Theoretical Price independent
of its affiliated exchanges in the same way it will calculate
Theoretical Price independent of non-affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an
Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided
Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly
because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new
process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted
thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider
and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the
Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the
Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into
account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for
market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that
if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the
Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and other options
exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price
in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange determines that a
particular type of corporate action is not being appropriately captured
by the TP Provider when such provider is generating Theoretical Price,
while the Exchange believes that it needs the ability to request a
review and correction of the Theoretical Price in connection with a
specific review in order to provide a timely decision to market
participants, the Exchange would share information regarding the
specific situation with the TP Provider and other options exchanges in
an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for future use. The
Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this
provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is
necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances.
Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in connection with
its rulings will always be that received from the TP Provider and the
Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from such price.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an
Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but
disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be
bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Interpretation and Policy
.08, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if
the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its
services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such
issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that
it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if
at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best
prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with
existing text in Rule 6.25(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a
specific time by which the service must be available in order to be
considered timely.\12\ The Exchange expects that it would await the TP
Provider's services becoming available again so long as the Exchange
was able to obtain information regarding the issue and the TP Provider
had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume normal operations
within the next several hours based on communications with the TP
Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol, Livevol has
business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that will help to
ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available or, in the
event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange
may determine, ``in consultation with other options exchanges . . .
that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary
nature of the situation.'' See Rule 6.25(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even
if such event did not qualify as a ``Significant Market Event''
pursuant to Rule 6.25(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or
otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and
other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent
possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now
have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to
invoke a discussion

amongst all options exchanges in the event of any widespread or
significant market events. The Exchange believes that this process
could be used in the event necessary if there were an issue with the TP
Provider.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of
Interpretation and Policy .08 to Rule 6.25 to disclaim the liability of
the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed Rule,
the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's
use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would
state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of
the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to
collectively as the ``TP Provider''), makes any warranty, express or
implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from
the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .08.
The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical
Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect
to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed Rule would state that
neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for
any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential
losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or
unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or
occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out
of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This
proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules
regarding ``reporting authorities'' that calculate indices.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Rule 24.14, which relates to index options
potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims
liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates; see also,
e.g., Rule 29.10, which relates to certain types of Credit Options
potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaim liability
for the Exchange, a reporting authority and any agent of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.25 to state that the Exchange will
rely on paragraph (b), and Interpretation and Policy .08 when
determining Theoretical Price.
No Valid Quotes--Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges
    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed
to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no
quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when
there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be
valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published
at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series
(a ``crossed market''); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were
submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii)
quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange
has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure
where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple
exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional
category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation
where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous
price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as
invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if
either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the
series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus,
similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes
published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the
transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for
purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same
market participant.
    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized
fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of
this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will
take considerable coordination with other options exchanges to confirm
that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed
submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to limit this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25)
total options series (i.e., whether such series all relate to the same
underlying security or multiple underlying securities). Second, the
Exchange proposes to require the party that believes it established the
best bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to
the Exchange the quotes which were submitted by such party and
published by other options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the
burden will be on the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their
quotations on other options exchanges to identify such quotations. In
turn, the Exchange will verify with such other options exchanges that
such quotations were indeed submitted by such party.
    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as
proposed to be amended.

Example 1--Current Rule, Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') Erroneously
Quotes on One Exchange

Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A TPH acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (``Market
Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security
ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy
options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker
A's quotes).
     Assume TPH A immediately enters sell orders and executes
against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely
request for review of the trades with TPH A as potentially erroneous
transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule
6.25(b)(2).
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
    [cir] The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount
set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error
has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above
this price is an obvious error.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by TPH
A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by TPH A were Customer orders.

Example 2--Current Rule, TPH Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges

Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A TPH acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (``Market
Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security
ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away Exchange'').
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume TPH A immediately enters sell orders and executes
against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with TPH A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid
pursuant to Rule 6.25(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away
Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical
Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous
buy transaction).
     The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25
minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether
an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or
adjusted.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, the
transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.

Example 3--Proposed Rule, TPH Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact
the proposed handling of a request for review where a market
participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has
not included a separate example for such a fact-pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A TPH acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (``Market
Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security
ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away Exchange'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the
same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The
Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume TPH A immediately enters sell orders and executes
against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with TPH A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting
the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market
Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as
quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange,
the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker
A).
Result
     Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify
Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would
consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant
to Rule 6.25(b)(2).
     The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate
to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the
other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed,
each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid
the quotations published on the other exchange.
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
    [cir] The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount
set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error
has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any execution at or above
this price is an obvious error.
    [cir] Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted
by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price
of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by TPH
A were non-Customer orders.
    [cir] The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent
the incoming orders submitted by TPH A were Customer orders.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other
options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is
approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified
or adjusted as set forth above.
     If this example was instead modified such that Market
Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes
that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as
invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As
noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25
series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely
and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market
participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be
necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question
on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a
transaction on the Exchange.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal
to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the
Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the
operative date in a Regulatory Circular made available to its Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act. Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act because it would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are
seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The
Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the
event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater
transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the
proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants
across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly
market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act in that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating
transactions.
    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of
the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to
Rule 6.25, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price
if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP
Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of
disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the
objectivity of the application of Rule 6.25. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the
limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review
and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has
sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange
notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to
determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do
so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited
under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote
provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower
and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently
wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical
Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn,
the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for
additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider
will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely
that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine
Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a
systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable
and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.
    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in
paragraph (d) of Interpretation and Policy .08 to Rule 6.25 to disclaim
the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with
the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price,
and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the
Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing
language in Exchange Rules regarding ``reporting authorities'' that
calculate indices, and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in
that the proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.
    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the
valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by
another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question
submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options
exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the application of
the rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating and facilitating transactions by allowing the Exchange to
coordinate with other options exchanges to determine whether a market
participant that is party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the
Exchange established the market in an option on other options
exchanges; to the extent this can be established, the Exchange believes
such participant's quotes should be excluded in the same way such
quotes are excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is
reasonable to limit the scope of this provision to twenty-five (25)
series and to require the party that believes it established the best
bid or offer on one or more other options exchanges to identify to the
Exchange the quotes which were submitted by that party and published by
other options exchanges. The Exchange believes these limitations are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because they will ensure
that the Exchange is able to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and
organized fashion, thus fostering cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions and also
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(8) of the Act \16\ in that it does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will
impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will
alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a
collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and
improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the
rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges
should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have
consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market
participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous
trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange
believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with
respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. To that
end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all
options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants
with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options
exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the
proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options
exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially
erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to
further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to
market events. The Exchange understands that all other options
exchanges intend to

file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions
apply to all market participants equally.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-058. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-058, and should be
submitted on or before September 28, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18939 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P