[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 55361]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25194]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Region 4 Library; FRL-9970-91-Region 4]

Notice of Change to Operating Hours

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Informational notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that the Region 4 Library will change its
operating hours from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The library will remain closed on Federal holidays.

DATES: The new operating hours for the Region 4 Library will be
effective November 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Region 4 Federal Library Managers
Shayla Patillo at<PHONE_NUMBER> or LouAnn Gross at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 27, 2017.
Kristy H. Eubanks,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-25194 Filed 11-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48686-48687]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3325; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-15]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace
designated as an extension at Santa Rosa, CA, by updating the
geographic coordinates of Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport to
coincide with the FAAs database. This action does not involve a change
in the dimensions or operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington DC 29591; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Riedl, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for this Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Santa Rosa, CA.

History

    The FAAs Aeronautical Information Services identified that the
airport reference point (ARP) was not coincidental with the FAA's
aeronautical database. This action makes these corrections.
Accordingly, since this action merely adjusts the geographic
coordinates of the airport, notice and public procedure under 553(b)
are unnecessary.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6,
2014, and

effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as an
extension at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA.
The airport's geographic coordinates are adjusted to be in concert with
the FAA's aeronautical database. This is an administrative change and
does not affect the dimensions or operating requirements of the
airspace area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014,
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AWP CA D Santa Rosa, CA [Amended]

    Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (lat. 38[deg]30'35''
N., long. 122[deg]48'46'' W.).

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Santa Rosa/Charles M.
Schulz-Sonoma County Airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
Class D or Class E Surface Area

* * * * *

AWP CA E4 Santa Rosa, CA [Amended]

    Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (lat. 38[deg]30'35''
N., long. 122[deg]48'46'' W.).

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles
either side of the 342[deg] bearing from the Charles M. Schulz-
Sonoma County Airport, CA, extending from the 4.3- mile radius of
the airport to 14 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 5, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-19952 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3072]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-214-000; ER06-214-001]

Power Bidding Strategies, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 9, 2006.
    Power Bidding Strategies, LLC (Power Bidding) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The
proposed rate tariff provides for the sales of energy and capacity at
market-based rates. Power Bidding also requested waiver of various
Commission regulations. In particular, Power Bidding requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Power Bidding.
    On January 9, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Power Bidding should file a motion to intervene or protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protests is February 8, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Power Bidding is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations
or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in
respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance
or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes
of Power Bidding, compatible with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Power Bidding's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-477 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18086-18088]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are
finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be
used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and
their contents.

DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the
following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect for the listed communities prior to this date.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs
for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since
that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice.
However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive
Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are
available for inspection.
    The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
    These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these
elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The
changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that

have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.    newspaper  where     Chief executive  officer  Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-    City of El Mirage (08- May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Fred         April 30, 2009.................       040041
     1059).                          09-1164P).             2009; Arizona         Waterman, Mayor, City of
                                                            Business Gazette.     El Mirage, P.O. Box 26,
                                                                                El Mirage, AZ 85335.
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-    Unincorporated areas   May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Andrew W.    April 30, 2009.................       040037
     1059).                          of Maricopa County     2009; Arizona         Kunasek, Chairman,
                                     (08-09-1164P).         Business Gazette.     Maricopa County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 301 West
                                                                                Jefferson Street, 10th
                                                                                Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-    Unincorporated areas   May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Andrew W.    April 23, 2009.................       040037
     1059).                          of Maricopa County     2009; Arizona         Kunasek, Chairman,
                                     (08-09-1294P).         Business Gazette.     Maricopa County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 301 West
                                                                                Jefferson Street, 10th
                                                                                Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-    City of Phoenix (08-   May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Phil         April 23, 2009.................       040051
     1059).                          09-1294P).             2009; Arizona         Gordon, Mayor, City of
                                                            Business Gazette.     Phoenix, 200 West
                                                                                Washington Street, 11th
                                                                                Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
    Maricopa (FEMA Docket No: B-    City of Phoenix (08-   May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Phil         September 11, 2009.............       040051
     1059).                          09-1384P).             2009; Arizona         Gordon, Mayor, City of
                                                            Business Gazette.     Phoenix, 200 West
                                                                                Washington Street, 11th
                                                                                Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
    Navajo (FEMA Docket No: B-      Unincorporated areas   April 22, 2009;       The Honorable J.R.         August 27, 2009................       040066
     1055).                          of Navajo County (08-  April 29, 2009; The   Despain, Chairman,
                                     09-1857P).             Tribune News.         Navajo County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, P.O. Box
                                                                                668, Holbrook, AZ 86025.
California:
    Sacramento (FEMA Docket No: B-  City of Elk Grove (08- May 12, 2009; May     The Honorable Patrick      June 2, 2009...................       060767
     1059).                          09-1760P).             19, 2009; The         Hume, Mayor, City of Elk
                                                            Sacramento Bee.       Grove, 8401 Laguna Palms
                                                                                Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758.
    Sacramento (FEMA Docket No: B-  Unincorporated areas   May 12, 2009; May     The Honorable Susan        June 2, 2009...................       060262
     1059).                          of Sacramento County   19, 2009; The         Peters, Chair,
                                     (08-09-1760P).         Sacramento Bee.       Sacramento County Board
                                                                                of Supervisors, 700 H
                                                                                Street, Suite 2450,
                                                                                Sacramento, CA 95814.
    San Diego (FEMA Docket No: B-   City of Carlsbad (09-  May 1, 2009; May 8,   The Honorable Claude A.    September 8, 2009..............       060285
     1059).                          09-0276P).             2009; North County    Lewis, Mayor, City of
                                                            Times.                Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad
                                                                                Village Drive, Carlsbad,
                                                                                CA 92008.
    Ventura (FEMA Docket No: B-     Unincorporated areas   May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Steve        September 14, 2009.............       060413
     1059).                          of Ventura County      2009; Ventura Star.   Bennett, Chairman,
                                     (08-09-1921P).                               Ventura County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 800 South
                                                                                Victoria Avenue,
                                                                                Ventura, CA 93009.
Colorado:
    Grand (FEMA Docket No: B-1059)  Town of Granby (08-08- April 30, 2009; May   The Honorable Jynnifer     September 8, 2009..............       080248
                                     0416P).                7, 2009; Middle       Pierro, Mayor, Town of
                                                            Park Times.           Granby, P.O. Box 440,
                                                                                Granby, CO 80446.
    Grand (FEMA Docket No: B-1059)  Unincorporated areas   April 30, 2009; May   The Honorable Nancy        September 8, 2009..............       080280
                                     of Grand County (08-   7, 2009; Middle       Stuart, Chairman, Grand
                                     08-0416P).             Park Times.           County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                264, Hot Sulphur
                                                                                Springs, CO 80451.
Florida: Charlotte (FEMA Docket     Unincorporated areas   May 11, 2009; May     The Honorable Adam         April 30, 2009.................       120061
 No: B-1059).                        of Charlotte County    18, 2009; Charlotte   Cummings, Chairman,
                                     (09-04-3000P.          Sun-Herald.           Charlotte County Board
                                                                                of Commissioners, 18500
                                                                                Murdock Circle, Port
                                                                                Charlotte, FL 33948.
Indiana: Marion (FEMA Docket No: B- City of Indianapolis   May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Gregory A.   April 30, 2009.................       180159
 1059).                              (09-05-2436P).         2009; Indianapolis    Ballard, Mayor, City of
                                                            Recorder.             Indianapolis, City-
                                                                                County Building, Suite
                                                                                2150, 200 East
                                                                                Washington Street,
                                                                                Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Missouri: St. Louis (FEMA Docket    City of Richmond       April 30, 2009; May   The Honorable James J.     September 8, 2009..............       290380
 No: B-1055).                        Heights (09-07-        7, 2009; The          Beck, Mayor, City of
                                     0908P).                Countian.             Richmond Heights, 1330
                                                                                South Big Bend
                                                                                Boulevard, Richmond
                                                                                Heights, MO 63117.
Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No: B-   City of North Las      May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Michael L.   September 14, 2009.............       320007
 1059).                              Vegas (09-09-0019P).   2009; Las Vegas       Montandon, Mayor, City
                                                            Review-Journal.       of North Las Vegas, 2200
                                                                                Civic Center Drive,
                                                                                North Las Vegas, NV
                                                                                89030.

North Carolina: Pender (FEMA        Unincorporated Areas   May 6, 2009; May 13,  Mr. Rick Benton, Manager,  September 10, 2009.............       370344
 Docket No: B-1059).                 of Pender County (08-  2009; The Pender      Pender County, 805 South
                                     04-6525P).             Post.                 Walker Street, P.O. Box
                                                                                5, Burgaw, North
                                                                                Carolina 28425.
Oklahoma: Rogers (FEMA Docket No:   City of Catoosa (09-   May 6, 2009; May 13,  The Honorable Rita         April 29, 2009.................       400185
 B-1059).                            06-0354P).             2009; Catoosa Times.  Lamkin, Mayor, City of
                                                                                Catoosa, P.O. Box 190,
                                                                                Catoosa, OK 74015.
South Carolina: Charleston (FEMA    City of North          April 30, 2009; May   The Honorable R. Keith     September 3, 2009..............       450042
 Docket No: B-1059).                 Charleston (08-04-     7, 2009; Post and     Summery, Mayor, City of
                                     2279P).                Courier.              North Charleston, P.O.
                                                                                Box 190016, North
                                                                                Charleston, SC 29419.
Texas:
    Brazos (FEMA Docket No: B-      City of College        May 11, 2009; May     The Honorable Ben White,   June 2, 2009...................       480083
     1059).                          Station (08-06-        18, 2009; Bryan-      Mayor, City of College
                                     2806P).                College Station       Station, P.O. Box 9960,
                                                            Eagle.                College Station, TX
                                                                                77842.
    Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-      City of Cedar Hill     May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Rob Franke,  September 14, 2009.............       480168
     1059).                          (08-06-2296P).         2009; Dallas          Mayor, City of Cedar
                                                            Morning News.         Hill, 285 Uptown
                                                                                Boulevard, Cedar Hill,
                                                                                TX 75104.
    Dallas (FEMA Docket No: B-      City of Duncanville    May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable David        September 14, 2009.............       480173
     1059).                          (08-06-2296P).         2009; Dallas          Green, Mayor, City of
                                                            Morning News.         Duncanville, P.O. Box
                                                                                380280, Duncanville, TX
                                                                                75138.
    Denton (FEMA Docket No: B-      City of Frisco (08-06- May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Maher Maso,  May 29, 2009...................       480134
     1059).                          3220P).                2009; Frisco          Mayor, City of Frisco,
                                                            Enterprise.           6101 Frisco Square
                                                                                Boulevard, Frisco, TX
                                                                                75034.
    Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-   Unincorporated areas   April 16, 2009;       The Honorable Robert E.    August 21, 2009................       480228
     1052).                          of Fort Bend County    April 23, 2009;       Hebert, Ph.D., Fort Bend
                                     (08-06-2236P).         Fort Bend Sun.        County Judge, 301
                                                                                Jackson Street,
                                                                                Richmond, TX 77469.
    Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No: B-   City of Sugar Land     April 16, 2009;       The Honorable James A.     August 21, 2009................       480234
     1052).                          (08-06-2236P).         April 23, 2009;       Thompson, Mayor, City of
                                                            Fort Bend Sun.        Sugar Land, P.O. Box
                                                                                110, Sugar Land, TX
                                                                                77487.
    Galveston (FEMA Docket No: B-   City of League City    May 8, 2009; May 15,  The Honorable Toni         April 29, 2009.................       485488
     1059).                          (08-06-3081P).         2009; Galveston       Randall, Mayor, City of
                                                            County Daily News.    League City, 300 West
                                                                                Walker Street, League
                                                                                City, TX 77573.
Utah:
    Washington (FEMA Docket No: B-  City of LaVerkin (09-  April 23, 2009;       The Honorable Karl         August 28, 2009................       490174
     1059).                          08-0296P).             April 30, 2009; St.   Wilson, Mayor, City of
                                                            George Spectrum.      LaVerkin, 435 North Main
                                                                                Street, LaVerkin, UT
                                                                                84745.
    Washington (FEMA Docket No: B-  City of Toquerville    April 23, 2009;       The Honorable Kenneth      August 28, 2009................       490180
     1059).                          (09-08-0296P).         April 30, 2009; St.   Powell, Mayor, Town of
                                                            George Spectrum.      Toquerville, P.O. Box
                                                                                27, Toquerville, UT
                                                                                84774.
Wisconsin:
    Rock (FEMA Docket No: B-1059).  Unincorporated areas   April 30, 2009; May   The Honorable J. Russell   September 11, 2009.............       550363
                                     of Rock County (08-    7, 2009; Beloit       Podzilni, Chairman, Rock
                                     05-4045P).             Daily News.           County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 51 South
                                                                                Main Street, Janesville,
                                                                                WI 53545.
    Walworth (FEMA Docket No: B-    Unincorporated areas   May 7, 2009; May 14,  The Honorable Nancy        September 11, 2009.............       550462
     1059).                          of Walworth County     2009; Elkhorn         Russell, Chairperson,
                                     (08-05-4045P).         Independent.          Walworth County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, P.O. Box
                                                                                1001, Elkhorn, WI 53121.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 22, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-8049 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: January 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 3)]
[Notices]
[Page 857]
[DOCID:fr06ja10-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-28-000]

City of Banning, CA; Notice of Filing

December 29, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2009, the City of Banning,
California filed its seventh annual revision to its Transmission
Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment, to become effective as of January
1, 2010, consistent with its Transmission Owner Tariff filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. EL03-21, and the
California Independent System Operator Corporation Electric Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 13, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31320 Filed 1-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 56 (Friday, March 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15085-15090]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05852]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80279; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Complex Orders

March 20, 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 March 7, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to complex orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to complex orders
to: (i) Simplify the definitions of the complex order types that may be
made available on a class-by-class basis and remove references to
certain specific complex order types that will no longer be defined;
(ii) with respect to complex orders in open outcry, set forth
applicable ratios for an order to be eligible for complex order
priority within applicable priority rules; (iii) with respect to
complex orders in open outcry, make explicit the priority applicable
when there are other complex orders or quotes represented at the same
net price, whether such other orders or quotes are in the complex order
book (``COB'') or being represented in open outcry; and (iv) with
respect to complex orders in open outcry, clarify the applicable
minimum increment.
    First, with respect to definitions, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 6.53 to remove the definitions of spread order, combination order,
straddle order and ratio order and replace them with a more general
definition of a complex

order (which includes a stock-option order and a security future-option
order) to simplify the descriptions of the complex order types that may
be made available on a class-by-class basis. The proposed definition of
a ``complex order'' is any order for the same account as defined below:
     A ``complex order'' is any order involving the execution
of two or more different options series in the same underlying security
occurring at or near the same time for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy.
     A ``stock-option order'' is an order to buy or sell a
stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible
into the underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with
either (i) the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite
side of the market representing either (A) the same number of units of
the underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to
create a delta neutral position, or (ii) the purchase or sale of an
equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same
exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same number
of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying stock or convertible security portion of the order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1.1(ii) currently defines a ``stock-option order'' as
an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or
a related security coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of
option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing
either the same number of units of the underlying or related
security or the number of units of the underlying security necessary
to create a delta neutral position or (ii) the purchase or sale of
an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the
same exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market
from, the underlying or related security portion of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A ``security future-option order'' is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of units of a security future or a related
security convertible into a security future (``convertible security
future'') coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of option
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either the
same number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future or the number of units of the underlying for the
security future or convertible security future necessary to create a
delta neutral position or (ii) the purchase or sale of an equal number
of put and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price,
expiration date and each representing the same number of the underlying
for the security future or convertible security future, as and on the
opposite side of the market from, the underlying for the security
future or convertible security future portion of the order. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 1.1(zz) defines a ``security future-option order,''
which is deemed a type of Inter-regulatory Spread Order as that term
is defined in Rule 1.1(ll), as an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of a security future or a related security
convertible into a security future (``convertible security future'')
coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of option contract(s)
on the opposite side of the market representing either the same
number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future or the number of units of the underlying for the
security future or convertible security future necessary to create a
delta neutral position or (ii) the purchase or sale of an equal
number of put and call option contracts, each having the same
exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future, as and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying for the security future or convertible security future
portion of the order. Rule 1.1(ll) defines an ``Inter-regulatory
Spread Order'' as an order involving the simultaneous purchase and/
or sale of at least one unit in contracts each of which is subject
to different regulatory jurisdictions at stated limits, or at a
stated differential, or at market prices on the floor of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the definitions of a ``stock-option
order'' from Rule 1.1(ii) and ``security future-option order'' from
Rule 1.1(zz) to Rule 6.53 (and replaces them in Rule 1.1 with cross-
references to the new location of the definitions) so that all
definitions of the various types of complex orders are located in the
same place within the rules. The current and proposed definitions of
stock-option order are substantially similar. However, the Exchange
believes the language in the proposed definition of stock-option order
is more consistent with the language in other rules, including Rules
6.53C (related to electronic handling of complex orders) and 6.80
(related to order protection, which relates to the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan, also commonly referred to
as the Options Distributive Linkage Plan). The current and proposed
definitions of security future-option order have no substantive
differences. The proposed complex order definition is in part modeled
after the definition of a complex order (including a stock-option
order) already contained in Rule 6.53C(a).
    The Exchange proposes conforming changes to Rules 6.9 (including
Interpretation and Policy .03), 6.42(4) (including Interpretation and
Policy .01), 6.45(b)(ii), 6.48(b), 6.73(c), 6.74(d)(iii) and 8.51 to
harmonize these rules with the proposed changes in Rule 6.53 to
consistently reference the proposed new definition of a complex
order.\5\ As a result of the proposed changes to Rule 6.53, the
Exchange proposes to update related cross-references in Rules 6.53C.08,
6.74(d)(iii), 7.12(b)(i)(E), 24A.5 and 24B.5. The Exchange notes that,
while Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') may represent in open outcry a
complex order with any number of legs, and in any ratio, only complex
orders in the proposed applicable ratios are eligible for complex order
priority (subject to certain exceptions, including multi-class spreads
and SPX Combo Orders (see Rules 24.19 and 24.20, respectively) set
forth in Rule 6.45 and minimum increment relief set forth in Rule
6.42(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also deletes the paragraph
lettering from the order type definitions and puts the order types
in alphabetical order, which the Exchange believes will allow
investors to more easily locate the order type definitions within
the rules. Other than proposed changes to the definition of complex
orders as described above, the proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to the order type definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to complex orders represented and executed in
open outcry, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.45 (pertaining
to order and quote priority and allocation). Specifically, the proposed
changes amend Rule 6.45(b)(ii) to set forth the following applicable
ratio requirements for complex orders to be eligible for complex order
priority and minimum increment relief when represented and executed in
open outcry: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To be eligible for electronic processing via the CBOE Hybrid
System's COB and complex order RFR auction (``COA''), the system
requires that a complex order be entered on a single order ticket to
be electronically processed. Under existing Rule 6.53C(a)(1) and
(2), the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis the
applicable number of legs of a complex order or stock-option order
that is eligible for processing via COB and COA. Under the same
provisions, the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis
within certain parameters the applicable ratio of a complex order or
stock-option order that is eligible for processing via COB and COA.
Currently, the Exchange has limited COB and COA to orders of no more
than four (4) legs and ratios equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) (and, for
stock-option orders, ratios no greater than eight-to-one (8.00)).
Under this current structure, orders with more than four (4) legs or
that do not satisfy the ratio requirements are not eligible for
electronic processing via COB or COA, but would instead be routed
for handling in open outcry. The proposed rule change adds language
to the introductory paragraph of Rule 6.53C(a) to explicitly state
that the definitions of complex orders contained in that rule apply
only for purposes of the electronic handling of complex orders
pursuant to that rule, notwithstanding the proposed broader
definition of complex order contained in Rule 6.53. Because there
are two separate definitions of complex orders, the Exchange
believes this additional language will bring clarity to the rules
about when the definition of complex orders in Rule 6.53C(a)
applies, which is in the context of electronic trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For a complex order, the order is in a ratio that is less
than or equal to three-

to-one (3.00) or the order is in a ratio that is larger than three-to-
one (3.00) but the order is fully hedged (without regard to any prior
existing position). An order will be considered fully hedged if the
order is delta neutral +/-10% or if the party representing the order
can demonstrate that the complex order is fully hedged using reasonable
risk-valuation methodologies;
     for a stock-option order, the options leg(s) must (A)
represent the same number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security in the stock leg or (B) represent the number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to
create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than
eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the options
leg to the total number of units of stock or convertible security in
the stock leg; and
     for a security futures-option order, the options leg(s)
must (A) represent the same number of units of the underlying stock in
the security future leg or (B) represent the number of units of the
underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in
no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio
represents the total number of units of the underlying stock in the
options leg to the total number of units of stock or convertible
security in the security-futures leg.
    The proposed rule change also adds to the respective rules that,
for the purpose of applying the aforementioned ratios to complex orders
comprised of both mini-option contracts and standard option contracts,
ten (10) mini-option contracts will represent one (1) standard option
contract.
    As discussed above, proposed Rule 6.45(b)(ii)(A) sets forth the
ratio that determines whether a complex order executed in open outcry
is eligible for priority; however, proposed Rule 6.45(b)(ii)(B) sets
forth the terms of the priority for complex orders. The Exchange
proposes to add the following language to Rule 6.45(b)(ii)(B):
     A complex order may be executed without consideration to
prices of the same complex order that might be available on other
exchanges. A complex order with a ratio greater than three-to-one
(3.00) may not trade through prices in the individual option series
that are available on other exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is consistent with Rule 6.53C(c)(ii), which states that
``[c]omplex orders that are submitted to the COB may be executed
without consideration to prices of the same complex orders that
might be available on other exchanges[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above language is consistent with the order protection rules
implemented by all options exchanges.\8\ The Exchange is simply
proposing to add the language to proposed Rule 6.45(b)(ii)(B) in order
to avoid confusion with regards to the ability of a complex order to
trade-through away markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 6.81(b)(7) indicates that Trading Permit Holders need
not prevent Trade-Throughs where the ``transaction that constituted
the Trade-Through was effected as a portion of a Complex Trade[.]''
Additionally, a ``Complex Trade'' is defined as ``(i) the execution
of an order in an option series in conjunction with the execution of
one or more related order(s) in different option series in the same
underlying security occurring at or near the same time in a ratio
that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than
or equal to three-to-one (3.0) and for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy (for the purpose of applying the
aforementioned ratios to complex trades comprised of both mini-
option contracts and standard option contracts, ten (10) mini-option
contracts will represent one (1) standard option contract); or (ii)
the execution of a stock-option order to buy or sell a stated number
of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the
underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the
purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market representing either (A) the same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units
of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to create
a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than
eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the option
leg to the total number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security in the stock leg.'' See Rule 6.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, with respect to complex orders in classes where the COB is
available, the Exchange also proposes to make explicit the open outcry
priority applicable when there are other complex orders or quotes
represented at the same net price, whether such other orders or quotes
are in the COB or being represented in open outcry. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.45(b)(ii) to provide that if a
complex order would trade in open outcry at the same net debit or
credit price as another complex order, priority would go first to
public customer orders in COB (with multiple public customer orders
ranked based on time), then to complex order bids and offers
represented in the trading crowd (with multiple bids and offers ranked
in accordance with the allocation principles applicable to in-crowd
market participants contained in Rule 6.45(b)(i)(B) and (D),
respectively), and then to all other orders and quotes in the COB (with
multiple bids and offers ranked in accordance with the allocation
algorithm in effect pursuant to Rule 6.53C).\9\ This methodology for
prioritizing multiple complex orders for open outcry trading is
consistent with the methodology applicable for prioritizing multiple
simple orders for open outcry trading and how the Exchange has
interpreted and applied complex order priority.\10\ The Exchange is
merely proposing to reflect this existing interpretation within its
rule text for added clarity. The Exchange is proposing no changes to
the existing prioritization methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this provision,
Voluntary Professionals and Professionals, as defined in Rules
1.1(fff) and (ggg), respectively, are treated in the same manner as
broker-dealers in classes where the Voluntary Professional and
Professional designations are available.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that the provision of Rule
6.45(b)(i)(D), applicable to TPHs relying on Section 11(a)(1)(D) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and Rule 11a1-1(T)
thereunder (commonly known as the ``G'' exemption rule'') would
apply to complex orders in the same manner as it applies to simple
orders. Those rule provisions provide that in open outcry, any TPH
relying on the G exemption rule as an exemption must yield priority
to any bid (offer) at the same price of public customer orders and
broker-dealer orders resting in the electronic book, as well as any
other bids and offers that have priority over such broker-dealer
orders under those rules. Under these provisions, a TPH relying on
the G exemption rule would yield priority to simple public customer
orders and broker-dealer orders resting in the book and complex
public customer orders and broker-dealer orders resting in the COB,
as well as any other simple and complex bids and offers that have
priority over such broker-dealer orders under those rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, with respect to minimum increments for bids and offers on
complex orders, the Exchange proposes to clarify in Rule 6.42(4) which
complex orders are eligible for the relief in Rule 6.42(4).
Specifically, as discussed above, the Exchange proposes to add the
below language to Rule 6.42(4):
     Complex orders that do not meet the requirements of Rule
6.45(b)(ii)(A) are not eligible for the minimum increment relief in
this paragraph (4) (including the penny increment relief of
subparagraph (a) below).
    In short, if a complex order is in a ratio that is larger than the
3 to 1 and the order is not fully hedged, the order would not be
eligible for the minimum increment relief.\11\ Instead, each leg would
have to satisfy the minimum increment applicable to simple orders
generally.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As previously noted, the order would also not be eligible
for complex order priority set forth in Rule 6.45(b)(ii)(B).
    \12\ See Rules 6.42(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change makes other non-substantive,
technical changes to Rules 6.45, 6.53C(a), 6.73, 24A.5 and 24B.5,
including deleting extra spaces, adding spaces where necessary,
correction of typos and revising rule headings to be consistent with
other headings.
Discussion
    Table 1 below summarizes this proposal as it relates to complex
orders executed in open outcry and whether

those orders (based on their ratio) qualify for complex order minimum
increment relief, complex order priority, and trade-through relief.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Eligible to trade-
                                     Eligible for        Eligible for       through complex   Eligible to trade-
                                     complex order       complex order     order book prices  through leg prices
              Ratio                minimum increment    priority-- Rule        on other       on other exchanges
                                     relief-- Rule      6.45(b)(ii)(B)     exchanges-- Rules      (Rule 6.81)
                                        6.42(4)                             6.45(b)(ii)(B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=3 to 1........................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes.
>3 to 1 But Fully Hedged........  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  No.
>3 to 1 But Not Fully Hedged....  No................  No................  Yes \13\..........  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the definition of ``ratio order'' was first instituted in 2003
(which generally defined a permissible ratio as one that is less than
or equal to 3 to 1), multi-leg strategies were in their infancy.
Regardless, the Commission held that ``ratio orders within certain
permissible ratios may provide market participants with greater
flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and hedging
strategies.'' \14\ Today, multi-leg strategies are crucial pieces of
market participants' overall trading strategies, and the permissible
ratio has not been updated to reflect the reality of today's
marketplace, which is valid, risk-reducing multi-leg orders may have
ratios larger than 3 to 1. The Exchange believes having a mechanism by
which a complex order in a ratio larger than 3 to 1 may receive the
complex order benefits listed in Table 1 will allow market participants
to execute more sophisticated multi-leg strategies, which will also
allow market participants to more efficiently and effectively craft
finely tuned risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Exchanges are not required to honor the prices of a complex
order on other exchanges.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 48858 (December 1,
2003), 68 FR 68128 (December 5, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2003-007) (``Approval
Order''). In approving ratio orders, the Commission stated that
``[t]he Commission believes that ratio orders within certain
permissible ratios may provide market participants with greater
flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and hedging
strategies. In addition, the Commission believes that including such
ratio orders in the exception to the priority rules provided in CBOE
Rule 6.45(e) will facilitate the execution of ratio orders. In this
regard, the Commission believes that the procedures governing the
execution of complex orders, such as ratio orders, serve to reduce
the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions while increasing
efficiency and competitive pricing by requiring price improvement
before the order can receive priority over other orders.'' Id.
Pursuant to SR-CBOE-2017-009, Rule 6.45(e) was replaced with Rule
6.45(b)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that the Commission is concerned that the
simple order market may be somehow disadvantaged by allowing certain
multi-legged orders that have ratios larger than 3 to 1 to receive the
complex order benefits listed in Table 1. The chief concern appears to
be that if the ratios are too greatly expanded market participants
will, for example, enter multi-legged strategies designed primarily to
gain priority over orders on the limit order book or in the trading
crowd, rather than to effectuate a bona fide trading or hedging
strategy. Although the marketplace may in fact be better served by a
structure that does not require multi-legged orders to, among other
things, yield priority to a simple order (which cannot on its own
satisfy the terms of a multi-leg order), this proposal does not require
the Commission to pass judgment on the issue. Instead, this proposal
strikes a balance between the Commission's concerns and the overall
benefit of giving market participants the ability to efficiently
execute bona-fide, multi-leg trading or hedging strategies. To ensure
complex orders in ratios larger than 3 to 1 are receiving the complex
order benefits listed in Table 1 only when the complex orders represent
bona-fide multi-legged trading or hedging strategies, the Exchange is
proposing that any complex order in a ratio larger than 3 to 1 must be
fully hedged in order to receive the complex order benefits listed in
Table 1.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A Complex order in a ratio of 3 to 1 or less already
receive the benefits listed in Table 1. The Exchange is not
proposing to change the benefits as they relate to a complex order
in a ratio of 3 to 1 or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``fully hedged'' concept of this proposal is based, in part, on
SEC Rules related to qualified contingent trades (``QCTs'').\16\
Specifically, the Commission granted an exemption from Rule 611(a) for
any trade-throughs of quotations in NMS stocks caused by the execution
of an order involving one or more NMS stocks that are components of a
QCT. More specifically, in order for a transaction to qualify as a QCT,
the Commission requires, among other things, that the exempted NMS
Stock Transaction be ``fully hedged (without regard to any prior
existing position) as a result of the other components of the
contingent trade.'' \17\ The Exchange is simply proposing that the
fully hedged concept be used to determine whether a multi-legged order
in a ratio larger than 3 to 1 qualifies to receive the complex order
benefits described in Table 1. Consistent with the QCT exemption, for
the purposes of the complex order benefits a multi-legged order must be
evaluated without regard to any prior existing position. In addition,
in order to have a reasonable basis to conclude that an order is fully
hedged market participants must use reasonable risk-valuation
methodologies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission granted an exemption from Rule 611(a) for
any trade-throughs of quotations in NMS stocks caused by the
execution of an order involving one or more NMS stocks that are
components of a QCT. See Securities Exchange Act Release 54389
(August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006) and Securities
Exchange Act Release 57620 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9,
2008). The Commission defines a QCT as a transaction consisting of
two or more component orders, executed as agent or principal, where:
(1) At least one component order is in an NMS stock; (2) all
components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (3) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (4) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined at the time the
contingent order is placed; (5) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or since cancelled; and (6) the Exempted NMS Stock
Transaction is fully hedged (without regard to any prior existing
position) as a result of the other components of the contingent
trade. Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See QCT Exemptive Order, FN 16 (providing that a trading
center may demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is
fully hedged based on the use of reasonable risk-valuation
methodologies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to allowing market participants to devise their own
reasonable risk-valuation methodologies to determine if an order is
fully hedged, the Exchange believes it's important to specify in the
Rules a method for market participants to determine whether a complex
order in a ratio larger than 3 to 1 is fully hedged. Thus, the Exchange
is also proposing that a multi-legged order

in a ratio larger than 3 to 1 that is delta neutral plus or minus 10%
will be considered fully hedged for the purposes of the complex order
benefits listed in Table 1. The Exchange believes delta hedging is one
example of a proven, longstanding risk-valuation methodology, and a
transaction that is nearly 100% delta neutral represents a bona-fide
multi-legged strategy that deserves the complex order benefits listed
in Table 1. For example, a complex order consisting of one leg to buy
30 VIX calls and another leg to sell 30 VIX puts--both in the same
series--combined with a third leg to purchase 100 VIX calls in a
separate series that have a delta of ``30'' (30% or .30) creates a
delta neutral position, and there is no reason such a transaction
should not receive the complex order benefits listed in Table 1.
Additionally, because reasonable minds may disagree as to a particular
options delta, the plus or minus 10% standard gives market participants
a reasonable margin for error when determining whether the order should
receive the complex order benefits listed in Table 1. For example, in
the above transaction, the Exchange may determine that the delta for
the 100 VIX calls is 29, which would mean the transaction is not 100%
delta neutral because the transaction represents a position that is
long 29 deltas and short 30 deltas. The difference in delta
calculations should not affect the ability of the order to qualify for
the complex order benefits listed in Table 1 because whether the
transaction is 100% delta neutral, or nearly 100% delta neutral, such
orders represent bona-fide multi-legged strategies that do not
disadvantage the simple order market because the simple order market
cannot satisfy the terms of the complex order.
    In short, the Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with
the Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the
Commission held that ``ratio orders within certain permissible ratios
may provide market participants with greater flexibility and precision
in effectuating trading and hedging strategies[,]'' \19\ complex orders
that are fully hedged may provide market participants with greater
flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and hedging
strategies. The Exchange also believe this proposal is consistent with
the Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the
Commission held that ``including such ratio orders in the exception to
the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule 6.45(e) \20\ will facilitate
the execution of ratio orders[,]'' \21\ including fully hedged complex
orders in the exception to the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule
6.45(b)(ii) will facilitate the execution of fully hedged complex
orders. Finally, in the same way that the Commission held that ``the
procedures governing the execution of complex orders, such as ratio
orders, serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions
while increasing efficiency and competitive pricing by requiring price
improvement before the order can receive priority over other
orders[,]'' \22\ the Exchange believes the procedures governing the
execution of fully hedged complex orders serve to reduce the risk of
incomplete or inadequate executions while increasing efficiency and
competitive pricing by requiring price improvement before the order can
receive priority over other orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Approval Order at 68128.
    \20\ As previously noted, pursuant to SR-CBOE-2017-009, Rule
6.45(e) was replaced by Rule 6.45(b)(ii).
    \21\ See Id.
    \22\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon approval of this rule change filing, the Exchange will
announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the
approval date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days
following the approval date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\23\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \24\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \25\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that (1) removing the
definitions of spread order, combination order, straddle order and
ratio order from Rule 6.53 and incorporating the more general
definition of a complex order (including a stock-option order (and the
elimination of a redundant definition of stock-option order) and a
security future-option order) into the Rule and (2) harmonizing rules
that reference such definitions simplifies and provides more clarity
and uniformity to the rules, which ultimately benefits investors. The
Exchange believes the proposed nonsubstantive changes to the rules,
include the alphabetization of the order type definitions, further
benefits investors, as they improve the readability of and further
simplify the rules.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
limit complex order priority, complex order increments, and complex
order trade-through principals to complex orders that satisfy the
proposed ratio requirements will, in general, help protect investors by
ensuring that market participants receiving complex order benefits are
executing bona-fide multi-legged trading or hedging strategies.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with the
Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the Commission
held that ``ratio orders within certain permissible ratios may provide
market participants with greater flexibility and precision in
effectuating trading and hedging strategies[,]'' \26\ complex orders
that are fully hedged may provide market participants with greater
flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and hedging
strategies. The Exchange also believe this proposal is consistent with
the Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the
Commission held that ``including such ratio orders in the exception to
the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule 6.45(e) will facilitate the
execution of ratio orders[,]'' \27\ including fully hedged complex
orders in the exception to the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule
6.45(b)(ii) will facilitate the execution of fully hedged complex
orders. Finally, in the same way that the Commission held that ``the
procedures governing the execution of complex orders, such as ratio
orders, serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions
while increasing efficiency and competitive pricing by

requiring price improvement before the order can receive priority over
other orders[,]'' \28\ the Exchange believes the procedures governing
the execution of fully hedged complex orders serve to reduce the risk
of incomplete or inadequate executions while increasing efficiency and
competitive pricing by requiring price improvement before the order can
receive priority over other orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Approval Order at 68128.
    \27\ See Id.
    \28\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, making explicit the open outcry priority applicable
when there are other complex orders or quotes represented at the same
net price, whether such other orders or quotes are in the COB or being
represented in open outcry, provides added clarity to the rule text in
a manner that is consistent with the existing methodology applicable
for prioritizing multiple simple orders for open outcry trading and how
the Exchange has interpreted and applied complex order priority. The
Exchange notes that it is not proposing to amend how complex orders are
allocated or the priority afforded to complex orders in open outcry; it
is merely modifying the requirements for a complex order to be eligible
for the existing open outcry complex order priority.
    The Exchange notes that TPHs may continue to represent and execute
in open outcry a complex order with any number of legs and in any
ratio. However, if a complex order does not satisfy the applicable
ratio requirements as set forth above, then it will not be eligible for
the complex order benefits listed in Table 1. Additionally, even if a
complex order is fully hedged market participants do not have to
utilize the complex order benefits listed in Table 1 if they choose not
to. The Exchange believes the proposed changes will increase
opportunities for execution of complex orders and lead to tighter
spreads on CBOE, which will benefit investors. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to not permit unfair
discrimination among market participants, as all market participants
may trade complex orders, and the priority eligibility requirements
apply to complex orders of all market 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 Exchange believes that
simplifying and expanding its rules related to complex orders helps
provide clarity with regards to the execution of complex orders and
increases the likelihood that market participants will execute bona-
fide complex orders on CBOE. This proposal promotes fair and orderly
markets as well as assists the Exchange in its ability to effectively
attract order flow and liquidity to its market, which ultimately
benefits all TPHs and all investors. Complex orders are available to
all TPHs (and all non-TPH market participants through TPHs), and the
Exchange believes any perceived burden on customers is outweighed by
customers' ability to execute complex orders as proposed.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-019 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-2017-019. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-019 and should be
submitted on or before April 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05852 Filed 3-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 76010]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 487-120 and 1881-087]

Holtwood, LLC and BIF III Holtwood LLC; Notice of Application for
Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    On November 6, 2015, Holtwood, LLC (transferor) and BIF III
Holtwood LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of licenses
of the Wallenpaupack Hydroelectric Project No. 487 located on
Wallenpaupack Creek and the Lackawaxen River in Wayne and Pike
counties, Pennsylvania and the Holtwood Project No. 1881 located on the
Susquehanna River in York and Lancaster counties, Pennsylvania. The
projects do not occupy any federal lands.
    Applicant Contacts: For transferor: David B. Kinnard, Associate
General Counsel, Talen Energy, 303 North Broadway, Suite 400, Billings,
MT 59101, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For transferee: Joshua Stayn, Director, Legal, Services, BIF III
Holtwood LLC, 75 State Street, Suite 2701, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(857) 313-7696, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket numbers P-487-120 or P-1881-087.

    Dated: December 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30739 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P