[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 30297]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7024-001]

Falck, David P.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 5, 2016, David P. Falck submitted for
filing, supplemental application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and Part
45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 45.
    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 5 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 electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 26, 2016.

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11528 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4700-4701]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0901; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-12]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Freer, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Freer,
TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Seven C's Ranch Airport. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0901/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ASW-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-(800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0901/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach
procedures at Seven C's Ranch Airport, Freer, TX. Controlled airspace
is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 would establish controlled airspace at Seven C's Ranch Airport,
Freer, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Freer, TX [New]

Seven C's Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]59'49'' N., long. 98[deg]52'56'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Seven C's Ranch Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 153[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.7-mile radius to 11.1 miles southeast of the airport,
excluding that airspace within Restricted Area R-6312.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 12, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manater, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-2020 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50713-50716]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20090]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31217; File No. 812-14288]

American Fidelity Assurance Company, et al.; Notice of
Application

August 19, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order approving the substitution
of certain securities pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the ``1940 Act'').

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

APPLICANTS: American Fidelity Assurance Company (the ``Insurance
Company''), American Fidelity Separate Account A, American Fidelity
Separate Account B, and American Fidelity Separate Account C (the
``Separate Accounts'').
SUMMARY:  Summary of Application: The Applicants seek an order pursuant
to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act permitting the substitution of
securities issued by a registered investment company currently held by
the Separate Accounts (the ``Substitution''), which securities support
the Separate Accounts' variable annuity contracts that are issued by
the Insurance Company (the ``Contracts'').

DATES:  Filing Date: The application was filed on March 12, 2014, and
amended and restated applications were filed on June 27, 2014 and
August 19, 2014.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the
Commission and serving the Applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the
Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 15, 2014, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests
should state the nature of the requester's interest, the reason for the
request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a
hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary of the
Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: American Fidelity Assurance
Company, Attn: Christopher T. Kenney, 2000 N. Classen, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark N. Zaruba, Senior Counsel at
(202) 551-6878, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Insurance Company is a stock life insurance company
incorporated under the laws of Oklahoma. The Insurance Company is the
depositor of the Separate Accounts and the investment adviser of the
Existing Fund (defined below).
    2. Each of the Separate Accounts is a segregated asset account of
the Insurance Company, and each Separate Account is registered with the
Commission as a unit investment trust. The separate accounts are used
by the Insurance Company to issue Contracts. Interests under the
Contracts are registered under the Securities Act of 1933. The
application sets forth the registration statement file numbers for the
Contracts and the Separate Accounts.
    3. The American Fidelity Dual Strategy Fund, Inc. (the ``Existing
Fund'') is a registered investment company that is an affiliate of the
Applicants because it is advised by the Insurance Company. The Existing
Fund is available exclusively through the purchase of one of the
Contracts from one of the Separate Accounts. The Existing Fund is not
an investment option in any other annuity contracts. In addition, the
Existing Fund retains four sub-advisors, each with different principal
investment strategies.
    4. The Vanguard Variable Insurance Fund Total Stock Market Index
Portfolio (the ``Replacement Fund'') is a member of The Vanguard Group.
The Replacement Fund allocates its assets by investing in two separate
Vanguard funds--the Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund and the
Vanguard Variable Insurance Fund Equity Index Portfolio.
    5. The Insurance Company organized Separate Account A to hold the
assets that underlie the AFPrime Growth[supreg] Variable Annuity
contracts. Separate Account A's Contract is issued as a group contract,
and Separate Account A's assets are invested 100% in the Existing Fund,
with no other investment options available to the Separate Account A
participants. The prospectus for the Contract offered by Separate
Account A contains provisions reserving the Insurance Company's right
to replace the Existing Fund with a comparable fund if the Existing
Fund is not available as an investment option. Because Separate Account
A offers only one investment option, the Separate Account A Contract
does not permit a contract owner or participant in a group account
(each, a ``Contract Owner'') to transfer the Contract value from one
sub-account to another sub-account.
    6. The Insurance Company established Separate Account B to hold the
assets that underlie the AFAdvantage[supreg] Variable Annuity contracts
and established Separate Account C to hold the assets that underlie the
AFMaxx[supreg] 457(b) Group Variable Annuity contracts. Separate
Account B offers individual contracts, and Separate Account C offers
group contracts. Separate Accounts B and C are divided into 16 sub-
accounts, and each sub-account invests in the securities of a single
underlying mutual fund, including the Existing Fund. The Replacement
Fund currently is not an investment option in Separate Account B or C.
The prospectuses for the Separate Account B and C Contracts contain
provisions reserving the Insurance Company's right to substitute

another eligible investment option for any one of the portfolios
available under the Contract. Each Separate Account B and C Contract
permits the Contract Owner to transfer Contract value from one
subaccount to another subaccount available under the Contract at any
time, subject to certain restrictions and charges described in the
prospectuses for the Contracts, none of which will apply in connection
with the Substitution.
    7. The Applicants request an order from the Commission pursuant to
Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the proposed Substitutions of
shares of the Existing Fund held by the Separate Accounts with shares
of the Replacement Fund. Comparisons of the investment objectives,
investment strategies, principal risks and prior performance of the
Existing Fund and the Replacement Fund are included in the application.
    8. The following table compares the fees and expenses of the
Existing Fund and the Replacement Fund, as of December 31, 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Existing fund     Replacement fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Fees.................  0.50%.............  0.18%.
12b-1 Fees......................  None..............  None.
Administrative Fees.............  None..............  None.
Other Expenses..................  None..............  None.
Total Annual Expenses...........  0.50%.............  0.18%.
Expense Waivers.................  None..............  None.
Net Annual Expenses.............  0.50%.............  0.18%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Applicants propose the Substitution as part of a continued
and overall business plan by the Insurance Company to make its
Contracts more attractive to both existing and prospective Contract
Owners. Applicants expect that the Substitution will provide
significant benefits to Contract Owners, because the Applicants
represent that the Replacement Fund generally has a better performance
record and lower total expenses than the Existing Fund.
    10. The Applicants represent that the Substitution is in response
to the continuing decline of sales in Separate Account A and the
minimal allocations to the Existing Fund in Separate Accounts B and C.
The Applicants submit that, without the Substitution, the Insurance
Company would be compelled to increase its investment advisory fee in
order to cover the escalating costs of managing the Existing Fund's
portfolio investments, which would adversely affect the Contract Owners
that are invested in the Existing Fund.
    11. The Separate Account B and C Contract Owners will continue to
be able to select among a large number of investment options, with a
full range of investment objectives, investment strategies and
managers. Although Separate Account A offers only one investment
option, the Applicants have determined that the objectives and
strategies of the Replacement Fund are sufficiently similar to the
objectives and strategies of the Existing Fund so that the essential
objectives and risk expectations of the Separate Account A Contract
Owners that are invested in the Existing Fund will continue to be met
after the Substitution. As a result of the Substitution, the number of
investment options offered under each of the Contracts will not change.
    12. Contract Owners with Contract value allocated to the Existing
Fund will experience lower fund net annual operating expenses after the
Substitutions as prior to the Substitutions. The Replacement Fund has a
management fee that is less than that of the Existing Fund. The overall
expenses of the Replacement Fund are less than those of the Existing
Fund. Applicants believe that, because the Replacement Fund will be
offered over a substantially larger asset base than the Existing Fund,
there is a potential that affected Contract Owners will, over time,
continue to realize the benefits of additional economies of scale with
respect to the advisory fees. Neither the Replacement Fund nor the
Existing Fund has a 12b-1 fee.
    13. The Substitution is designed to provide Contract Owners with
the ability to continue their investment in a similar investment option
without interruption and at no additional cost to them. In this regard,
the Insurance Company has agreed to bear all expenses incurred in
connection with the Substitutions and related filings and notices,
including legal, accounting, brokerage, and other fees and expenses.
The Contract values of the Contract Owners impacted by the Substitution
will not change on the date of the Substitution as a result of the
Replacement Fund replacing the Existing Fund.
    14. The proposed Substitution will be described in supplements to
the Contracts' prospectuses (the ``Supplements''), which will be filed
with the Commission and delivered to all affected Contract Owners at
least 45 days before the date on which the Substitution is to occur
(the ``Substitution Date'').\1\ All of the affected Contract Owners
will receive the relevant Supplement and the prospectus for the
Replacement Fund before the Substitution Date. New purchasers of the
Contracts will be provided the relevant Supplement, the relevant
Separate Account prospectus and the prospectus for the Replacement Fund
in accordance with all applicable legal requirements. Prospective
purchasers of the Contracts will be provided the relevant Supplement
and the relevant Separate Account prospectus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Applicants are targeting November 28, 2014 as the
Substitution Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Separate Account A Supplement will (a) notify the Separate
Account A Contract Owners that the Insurance Company has requested and
received an order from the Commission authorizing it to engage in the
Substitution, (b) indicate the Insurance Company's intent to implement
the Substitution, (c) state the anticipated Substitution Date, (d)
advise the Contract Owners that all Contract values in the Existing
Fund will be transferred to the Replacement Fund on the Substitution
Date, and (e) advise Contract Owners that the Substitution will take
place at relative net asset value.
    16. The Separate Account B and C Supplements will advise Separate
Account B and C Contract Owners that, from the date of the Supplements
until the Substitution Date, Contract Owners are permitted to transfer
their Contract values out of the Existing Fund sub-account to any other
sub-account(s) offered under the Contract or to a certain fixed
investment option that is part of the Insurance Company's general
account without the transfer being treated as a transfer for purposes
of transfer limitations and fees that would otherwise be applicable
under the terms of the Contract. The Separate Account B and C
Supplements also will (a) instruct Contract Owners how to submit
transfer requests in light of the proposed Substitution, (b) advise
Contract Owners that any Contract value remaining in the Existing Fund
subaccount on the Substitution Date will be transferred to the
Replacement Fund sub-account, (c) advise Contract Owners that the
Substitution will take place at relative net asset value, (d) inform
Contract Owners that for at least 30 days following the Substitution
Date, the Insurance Company will permit Contract Owners to make
transfers of Contract value out of the Replacement Fund sub-account to
any other sub-account(s) offered under the Contract without the
transfer being treated as a

transfer for purposes of transfer limitations and fees that would
otherwise be applicable under the terms of the Contract, and (e) inform
Contract Owners that, except in connection with market timing/short-
term trading, the Insurance Company will not exercise any rights
reserved by it under the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on
transfers out of the Replacement Fund for at least 30 days after the
Substitution Date.
    17. In addition to the Supplements distributed to Contract Owners,
within five business days after the Substitution Date, Contract Owners
whose assets are allocated to the Replacement Fund as part of the
Substitution will be sent a written notice (the ``Confirmation'')
informing them that the Substitution was completed. With regard to the
Separate Account B and C Contract Owners whose assets are allocated to
the Replacement Fund as part of the Substitution, a notice accompanying
the Confirmation also will reiterate the information set forth in the
Supplement to the effect that (a) for at least 30 days after the
Substitution Date, Contract Owners may make free transfers out of the
Replacement Fund to one or more other investment options, and (b)
inform Contract Owners that, except in connection with market timing/
short-term trading, the Insurance Company will not exercise any rights
reserved by it under the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on
transfers out of the Replacement Fund for at least 30 days after the
Substitution Date.
    18. Applicants will effect the Substitution after the issuance of
the requested order. As of the Substitution Date, shares of the
Existing Fund will be redeemed for cash. The Insurance Company, on
behalf of the Separate Accounts, will simultaneously place a redemption
request with the Existing Fund and a purchase order with the
Replacement Fund so that the purchase of the Replacement Fund shares
will be for the exact amount of the redemption proceeds. Thus, the
Contract values will remain fully invested at all times. The proceeds
of the redemption will be used to purchase the appropriate number of
shares of the Replacement Fund.
    19. The Substitution will take place at relative net asset value,
with no change in the amount of any affected Contract Owner's account
value or death benefit, or in the dollar value of his or her investment
in the applicable Separate Account. No brokerage commissions, fees or
other remuneration will be paid by either the Existing Fund or the
Replacement Fund or by affected Contract Owners in connection with the
Substitution. The Substitution will not result in an increase in
contract fees and expenses, including mortality and expense risk fees
and administration and distribution fees charged by the Separate
Accounts. Additionally, the Substitution will result in decreased net
expense ratios. All expenses incurred in connection with the proposed
Substitutions, including any brokerage, legal, accounting, and other
fees and expenses, will be paid by the Insurance Company. In addition,
the Substitutions will not result in adverse tax consequences to
Contract Owners and will not alter any tax benefits associated with the
Contracts.

Legal Analysis

    1. The Applicants request that the Commission issue an order
pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the proposed
Substitution. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for the
depositor of a registered unit investment trust that invests in the
securities of a single issuer to substitute another security for such
security without Commission approval. Section 26(c) further states that
the Commission shall issue an order approving such a substitution ``if
the evidence establishes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions
of this title.''
    2. As discussed above, the Applicants have reserved the right under
the each of the Separate Account's Contracts to substitute shares of
another underlying mutual fund for one of the current underlying mutual
funds offered as an investment option under the Contracts. The Contract
prospectuses disclose this right.
    3. The Replacement Fund and the Existing Fund have sufficiently
similar investment objectives and policies to make the Replacement Fund
an appropriate candidate as a substitute. The Insurance Company
considered the performance history of the Existing Fund and the
Replacement Fund and determined that no contract holder would be
materially adversely affected as a result of the Substitution.
    4. The Substitution will not result in an increase in contract fees
and expenses, including mortality and expense risk fees and
administration and distribution fees charged by the Separate Accounts.
Additionally, the Substitution will result in decreased net expense
ratios. After the Substitution, neither the Insurance Company nor any
of its affiliates will receive compensation from the charges to the
Separate Accounts related to the Contracts or from Rule 12b-1 fees or
revenue sharing from the Replacement Fund. Thus, the Substitution
protects the Contract Owners who are invested in the Existing Fund by
providing a replacement fund that (a) is similar to the Existing Fund,
and (b) reduces net operating expense.
    5. Because Separate Account A offers only one investment option,
the Separate Account A Contract Owners do not have the discretion to
re-allocate their Contract values to another investment option if they
do not wish to invest in the Replacement Fund. Instead, if the Separate
Account A Contract Owners were dissatisfied with the Substitution, the
only relief available would be to redeem their interests in Separate
Account A and reinvest the proceeds in another unit investment trust or
in an open-end company, in which case the Contract Owners could be
subject to a new sales load. Accordingly, with regard to Separate
Account A, the proposed Substitution is the type of substitution that
Congress envisioned when it amended Section 26(c) to require SEC
approval of the substitution of one security for another security by
the depositor of a registered unit investment trust holding securities
of a single issuer. However, although Separate Account A offers only
one investment option, the Applicants have determined that the
objectives and strategies of the Replacement Fund are sufficiently
similar to the objectives and strategies of the Existing Fund that the
essential objectives and risk expectations of the Separate Account A
Contract Owners will continue to be met after the Substitution.
    6. With regard to Separate Accounts B and C, the proposed
Substitution is not of the type that Section 26 was designed to
prevent. The Separate Account B and C Contracts provide Contract Owners
with investment discretion to allocate and reallocate their Contract
values among the available sub-accounts that invest in the underlying
mutual fund investment options. This flexibility provides Separate
Account B and C Contract Owners with the ability to reallocate their
assets at any time--either before the Substitution Date or after the
Substitution Date--if they do not wish to invest in the Replacement
Fund. The likelihood of being invested in an undesired underlying
mutual fund is minimized, with the discretion remaining with the
Contract Owners, and the Separate Account B and C Contract Owners will
continue to be able to select among a large number of investment
options, with a full range of investment objectives, investment
strategies and managers. As a result of the Substitution, the number of

investment options offered under the Separate Account B and C Contracts
will not change. The Substitution, therefore, will not result in the
type of costly forced redemption that Section 26(c) was designed to
prevent.
    7. With regard to all three of the Separate Accounts, the proposed
Substitution is unlike the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was
designed to prevent in that by purchasing the Contracts, Contract
Owners select much more than a particular investment company in which
to invest their Contract values. They also select the specific type of
coverage offered by the Insurance Company under the Contracts, as well
as numerous other rights and privileges set forth in the Contracts. The
Substitution has no impact on these aspects of the Contracts.

Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth in the application, the Applicants submit
that the proposed Substitutions and related transactions meet the
standards of Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act and that the requested
orders should be granted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20090 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70994-70995]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27022]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0773; FRL-9219-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern emissions of particulate matter (PM) from wood burning devices.
We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate this emission
source under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments
on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0773 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public comment and proposed action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the date
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
Arizona State Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Rule No. Ordinance
           Local agency                      No.                 Rule title           Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.............................  Ordinance P-26.......  Residential                  10/23/19        11/20/19
                                                            Woodburning
                                                            Restriction.
MCAQD.............................  Rule 314.............  Outdoor Fires and            10/23/19        11/20/19
                                                            Commercial/
                                                            Institutional Solid
                                                            Fuel Burning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2020, the submittal for MCAQD Ordinance P-26 and Rule
314 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved earlier versions of Ordinance P-26 and Rule 314 into
the SIP on 11/9/09 (74 FR 57612). The MCAQD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved versions on 10/23/19 and ADEQ submitted them to us on 11/
20/19. In its submittal letter, ADEQ requested that, upon approval of
the revised versions of Ordinance P-26 and Rule 314, the EPA remove the
old versions of these rules from this SIP. If we take final action to
approve the 10/23/19 versions of Ordinance P-26 and Rule 314, these
versions will replace the previously approved versions of these rules
in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control PM emissions. Ordinance P-26 and Rule 314 were
revised to clarify the types of open outdoor fires allowed in Maricopa
County, when each type is allowed, and which rule requirements are
associated with each type of fire increase. Also added was a
requirement to use seasoned wood. The EPA's technical support document
(TSD) has more information about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). Guidance and policy documents that we
used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule
stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include
the following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures (BACM),'' EPA 450/2-92-
004, September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, BACM, and SIP revisions. The TSD has
more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until January 13, 2022. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MCAQD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 7, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-27022 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82017-82022]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66035; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-122]

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

December 22, 2011.
    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 December 12, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend certain rules pertaining to the
electronic trading of Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'') on
the Exchange's FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform.\3\

The Exchange is also proposing an amendment to eliminate certain
European-Capped style settlement and currency provisions within the
FLEX rules that pertain to both electronic and open outcry trading. The
text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary
and at the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FLEX Options provide investors with the ability to customize
basic option features including size, expiration date, exercise
style, and certain exercise prices. FLEX Options can be FLEX Index
Options or FLEX Equity Options. In addition, other products are
permitted to be traded pursuant to the FLEX trading procedures. For
example, credit options are eligible for trading as FLEX Options
pursuant to the FLEX rules in Chapters XXIVA and XXIVB. See CBOE
Rules 24A.1(e) and (f), 24A.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), 24B.1(f) and (g),
24B.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), and 28.17. The rules governing the trading
of FLEX Options on the FLEX Request for Quote (``RFQ'') System
platform are contained in Chapter XXIVA. The rules governing the
trading of FLEX Options on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform
are contained in Chapter XXIVB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is in the process of enhancing the FLEX Hybrid Trading
System platform (referred to herein as the ``FLEX System'' or the
``System'') in order to further integrate it with the Exchange's
existing technology platform utilized for non-FLEX trading. In
conjunction with the enhancement, the Exchange is proposing to make
some modifications to the existing electronic trading processes
utilized on the FLEX System platform.\4\ In particular, as discussed in
more detail below, the Exchange is proposing to (i) revise and enhance
the process for opening FLEX Option series with existing open interest,
(ii) eliminate certain Trade Conditions that will no longer be
supported in the new system and to add a new Trade Condition, (iii)
eliminate European-Capped exercise style and foreign currency
provisions that will no longer be supported in the new system, (iv)
modify and simplify the allocation algorithms applicable to the FLEX
electronic book and to the FLEX electronic RFQ process, and (v) include
a description of complex order handling under the electronic RFQ
process.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that is [sic] rule change filing is
primarily seeking to propose changes to the electronic trading
processes utilized on the FLEX System platform. The Exchange is not
proposing any changes to the open outcry trading processes for FLEX
options, except for the proposed changes pertaining to foreign
currencies.
    \5\ The FLEX System currently utilizes server software (residing
on CBOE's servers) and client software (installed on Trading Permit
Holder and Sponsored User workstations) that CBOE has licensed from
Cinnober Financial Technology AB (``Cinnober''). In conjunction with
the enhancements to the FLEX System, the Exchange will no longer
utilize the Cinnober software and, as a result, the Exchange will no
longer utilize the related Trading Permit Holder/Sponsored User
software sublicense, which is part of the Sponsored User Agreement
form that was put in place when the FLEX Hybrid Trading System was
established. See Securities Exchange Act Release 56792 (November 15,
2007), 72 FR 65776 (November 23, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-99) (the
``Original FLEX System Approval Order''). The Exchange also notes
that, in conjunction with the enhancements to the FLEX System, the
Exchange intends to make available certain risk management
application tools that CBOE Trading Permit Holders may determine to
use to assist with mitigating potential risks associated with orders
that exceed certain pre-trade thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Trading in Existing Series

    The first purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise and
enhance the process for opening electronic trading in FLEX Option
series with existing open interest. Under the current FLEX trading
procedures, there are no trading rotations conducted at the opening of
trading.\6\ Instead, to begin trading on a given day, a FLEX RFQ
process is required to initiate a transaction when there are no FLEX
Orders \7\ currently resting in the electronic book in the particular
series to be traded.\8\ Resting FLEX Orders may only be entered in the
electronic book as ``day orders'' and are cancelled at the close of
each trade day if unexecuted. Therefore, there would be no orders
resting in the book from the prior day.\9\ As a result, under the
current process, an initial RFQ is needed to open a particular series
for trading each day. Once an RFQ is completed, the series is
established in the FLEX System for the day and FLEX Orders may be
entered directly into the FLEX electronic book throughout the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 24B.3.
    \7\ A ``FLEX Order'' refers to (i) FLEX bids and offers entered
by FLEX Market-Makers and (ii) orders to purchase and orders to sell
FLEX Options entered by FLEX Traders, in each case into the
electronic book. A ``FLEX Market-Maker'' means a FLEX Trader that is
appointed as a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker or a FLEX Qualified
Market-Maker, each as described in Rule 24B.9. A ``FLEX Trader''
means a FLEX-participating Trading Permit Holder who has been
approved by the Exchange to trade on the System. See Rule 24B.1(h),
(j) and (l).
    \8\ The Exchange may determine in a class-by-class basis to make
an electronic book available in the FLEX System. See Rule 24B.5(b).
    \9\ In the future, the Exchange may determine to enable ``good-
til-cancelled'' functionality for FLEX Options. The introduction of
such functionality would be the subject of a separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To make the process more efficient and useful for FLEX users, the
Exchange is proposing to revise the procedure to provide that FLEX
Option series with existing open interest will be automatically opened
by the Exchange at a randomly selected time within a number of seconds
after 8:30 a.m. (all times noted herein are Central Time), at which
point in time FLEX Orders may be entered directly into the electronic
book (if available) and/or FLEX RFQ auctions may be initiated pursuant
to Rule 24B.5 As revised, it will no longer be necessary for there to
be an initial RFQ each day before entering a FLEX Order in the
electronic book in series with existing open interest. New FLEX Option
series will continue to be subject to the existing requirement that
there be an initial RFQ to initiate trading in the FLEX series on a
given trading day.

Trade Conditions

    The second purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate
certain Trade Conditions that will no longer be supported for
electronic trading in the new system and to add a new Trade Condition.
Currently, under Rule 24B.1, a ``Trade Condition'' means a contingency
that has been placed on an RFQ, RFQ Order \10\ or FLEX Order. The
following Trade Conditions are available in the System for a FLEX
Trader to choose from: (i) Fill-or-Kill, which is a condition to
execute an RFQ Order or FLEX Order in its entirety as soon as it is
represented or canceled it; (ii) All-or-None, which is a condition to
execute an RFQ Order or FLEX Order in its entirety or not at all; (iii)
Minimum Fill, which is a condition to execute an RFQ Order or a FLEX
Order in a minimum quantity or not at all; (iv) Lots Of, which is a
condition to execute an RFQ Order or a FLEX Order in minimum lot sizes
or not at all; (v) Intent to Cross, which is an RFQ condition
indicating that the Submitting Trading Permit Holder intends to cross
or act as principal and receive a crossing participation entitlement;
and (vi)

Hedge, which is a RFQ or FLEX Order condition contingent on trade
execution in Non-FLEX Options or other Non-FLEX components (e.g.,
stock, futures, or other related instruments or interests). Trade
Conditions, other than Intent to Cross or Hedge, are inputted but not
disclosed on the System. FLEX Orders, other than those designated as
Fill-or-Kill, are designated as day orders and, if unexecuted, are
automatically cancelled at the close of each trade day.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An ``RFQ Order'' is an order to purchase or order to sell
FLEX Options entered by the Submitting Trading Permit Holder during
the RFQ Reaction Period. The ``RFQ Reaction Period'' means the
period of time during which a Submitting Trading Permit Holder
determined whether to accept or reject the RFQ Market. A
``Submitting Trading Permit Holder'' means the FLEX Trader that (i)
initiates FLEX bidding and offering by submitting an RFQ or (ii)
enters a FLEX Order into the electronic book. An ``RFQ Market''
means the bids or offers, or both, as applicable, entered in
response to an electronic RFQ and FLEX Orders resting in the
electronic book. See Rule 24B.1(s), (t), (v) and (x), and Rule
24B.5(a)(1)(iii).
    \11\ See Rule 24B.1(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now proposing to eliminate the Fill-or-Kill,
Minimum Fill, Lots Of, and Intent to Cross Trade Conditions, as these
functions will not be supported under the FLEX System enhancements. The
Fill-or-Kill, Minimum Fill, Lots Of \12\ and Intent to Cross \13\ Trade
Conditions have generally not been actively used by FLEX Traders. Given
the lack of use, the Exchange no longer plans to support these Trade
Conditions under the new FLEX System enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed changes to Rule 24B.1(y). The Fill-or-Kill,
Minimum Fill and Lots Of Trade Conditions were originally designed,
in part, as an additional tool to assist FLEX Traders that are
electronically trading in meeting certain minimum value size
requirements applicable to the trading of FLEX Options; however, the
minimum size requirements have been eliminated on a pilot basis
(which the Exchange believes is one of the reasons why the Trade
Conditions are largely not used). See, e.g., Rule 24B.4(a)(5) and
.01(b). The minimum value size pilot is currently set to expire on
March 30, 2012, unless otherwise extended or made permanent. It is
the Exchange's intention to submit a separate rule change filing
proposing to make the pilot permanent. In addition, if for some
reason the minimum value size pilot is not extended or otherwise
made permanent, FLEX Traders have other means to satisfy the minimum
value size requirements (e.g., utilizing the All-or-None Trade
Condition, or entering RFQ Orders or FLEX Orders that would trade
against the electronic book with value sizes that would result in
transaction sizes sufficient to meet the minimum value size
requirement).
    \13\ See proposed changes to Rules 24B.1(y) and
24B.5(a)(1)(iii)(D) and (d)(1)(i). The Exchange notes that the
Intent to Cross Trade Condition is an optional feature that the
Exchange may determine to make available electronically on a class-
by-class basis in accordance with Rule 24B.5(d). The Intent to Cross
Trade Condition was originally designed to allow for an electronic
crossing participation entitlement for executions resulting from the
electronic RFQ process. (To use the feature, the Submitting Trading
Permit Holder must mark its RFQ with an ``intent to cross'' flag at
the time the RFQ is originally submitted to be automatically
allocated the applicable crossing participation entitlement for
facilitation and solicitation transactions. If the RFQ is not
flagged in this manner, the Submitting Member will not be
automatically allocated the entitlement.) The Exchange notes that
this crossing participation entitlement functionality has generally
not been actively used by FLEX Traders. (The Exchange also notes
that, apart from the Intent to Cross feature, a Submitting Trading
Permit Holder also has (and will continue to have) the ability to
enter an agency or proprietary FLEX Quote in response to the
Submitting Member's own electronic RFQ in accordance with the
provisions contained in Rule 24B.5(a)(1)(ii) and/or to cross FLEX
Orders in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule
24B.5(b)(3). However, no crossing participation entitlement applies
when these procedures are used.) In order to make a more efficient
and effective trading platform offering available for FLEX Traders
that includes a crossing participation entitlement feature, the
Exchange has submitted a separate rule change filing proposing to
make modified versions of the Automated Improvement Mechanism
(``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM'')--which are
currently available for non-FLEX Options under Rule 6.74A and 6.74B,
respectively--available for FLEX Options. See SR-CBOE-2011-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to adopt an Immediate-or-Cancel
Trade Condition. ``Immediate-or-Cancel'' will be defined as a condition
to execute an RFQ Order or FLEX Order in its entirety or in part as
soon as it is represented or cancel it. Thus, as proposed to be
revised, there will be three Trade Conditions: Immediate-or-Cancel,
All-or-None, and Hedge. Trade Conditions, other than Hedge, will be
inputted but not disclosed on the System. In addition, FLEX Orders,
other than those designated as Immediate-or-Cancel, will be designated
as day orders and, if unexecuted, will be automatically cancelled at
the close of each trade day.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Currency Provisions

    The third purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate
certain provisions in the FLEX Rules that permit (i) FLEX Options to be
designated with a European-Capped style exercise and (ii) FLEX Index
Options to be designated for settlement in foreign currencies (and
related index multiplier provisions for such currencies).\15\ These
European-Capped style and foreign currency provisions have generally
not been actively utilized.\16\ The Exchange no longer plans to support
foreign currency settlements in the new FLEX System, so the Exchange is
proposing to eliminate the provision within the rules and limit the
[sic] currently for FLEX Index Options to U.S. dollars. These changes
will apply to all FLEX trading on the Exchange, whether electronic or
open outcry.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed changes to Rules 24A.1(c) and (i),
24A.4(a)(2)(iii) and (b)(4), 24A.5(f), 24B.1(c) and (m),
24B.4(a)(2)(iii) and (b)(4), and 24B.5(e).
    \16\ The Exchange notes that there is currently no open interest
in any FLEX Option series with a European-Capped style exercise and
currently no open interest [sic] any FLEX Index Option series that
is designated for settlement in a foreign currency.
    \17\ In the future, the Exchange may determine to re-enable the
capability for settlement of FLEX Index Options in a foreign
currency, such foreign currency settlement provisions would be the
subject of a separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Allocation Algorithms

    The fourth purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify and
simplify the allocation algorithms applicable to the FLEX electronic
book and to the FLEX electronic RFQ process. Generally, and as
discussed in more detail below, the algorithms are proposed to be
simplified to be price-time priority, subject to public customer and
non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealer (``non-TPH broker-dealer'')
priority and, if applicable, any applicable entitlement priority. In
particular, the existing algorithms and proposed modifications are as
follows:
    FLEX Electronic Book: Currently, for the FLEX electronic book, all
FLEX Orders are ranked and matched based on price-time priority, unless
a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker is quoting at the best bid (offer) and a
FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement has been
established.\18\ If a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation
entitlement has been established, allocation among multiple bids
(offers) at the same price is as follows: (i) All FLEX Orders for the
account of a public customer ranked ahead of the FLEX Appointed Market-
Maker will participate in the execution based on time priority; (ii)
any FLEX Orders that are subject to the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker
participation entitlement will participate in the execution based on a
participation entitlement formula specified in Rule 24B.5(d)(2)(ii);
then (iii) all other FLEX Orders will participate based on time
priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange may establish from time to time a
participation entitlement formula that is applicable to FLEX
Appointed Market Makers on a class-by-class basis with respect to
open outcry RFQs, electronic RFQs and/or electronic book
transactions. Any such FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation
entitlement shall: (i) Be divided equally by the number of FLEX
Appointed Market-Makers quoting at the BBO or BBO clearing price, as
applicable; (ii) collectively be no more than: 50% of the amount
remaining in the order when there is one other FLEX Market-Maker
also quoting at the same price, 40% when there are two other FLEX
Market-Makers also quoting at the same price; and 30% when there are
three or more FLEX Market-Makers also quoting at the same price; and
(iii) when combined with any crossing participation entitlement,
shall not exceed 40% of the original order. See Rule
24B.5(d)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed to be revised and simplified, allocation among multiple
bids (offers) at the same price in the FLEX electronic book would be as
follows: (i) Public customer and non-TPH broker-dealers will
participate in the execution based on time priority; (ii) if
applicable, any FLEX Orders that are subject to the FLEX Appointed
Market-Maker participation entitlement will participate in the
execution based on a

participation entitlement formula specified in Rule
24B.5(d)(2)(ii);\19\ then (iii) all other FLEX Orders will participate
in the execution based on time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FLEX Electronic RFQs: Currently, for the electronic RFQ process,
executions of RFQ Orders occur at a single price that will leave bids
and offers which cannot trade with each other (referred to as the ``BBO
clearing price''). In determining the priority of bids and offers, the
FLEX System gives priority to FLEX Quotes \20\ and FLEX Orders whose
price is better than the BBO clearing price, then to FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders at the BBO clearing price. Currently, the allocation among
multiple FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders priced at the BBO clearing price
is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A ``FLEX Quote'' refers to (i) FLEX bids and offers entered
by FLEX Market-Makers and (ii) orders to purchase and orders to sell
FLEX Options entered by FLEX Traders, in each case in response to an
RFQ. See Rule 24B.1(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     General: The allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders priced at the BBO clearing price is generally as follows:
(i) Any FLEX Quotes subject to a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker
participation entitlement will participate in the execution based on a
participation entitlement formula (as described above); (ii) FLEX
Orders resting in the electronic book will participate in the execution
pursuant to the current book priority algorithm (discussed above);
(iii) FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-TPH
broker-dealers will participate in the execution based on time
priority; then (iv) all other FLEX Quotes will participate in the
execution based on time priority.
     Lock/Crossed Markets: In the event the RFQ Market \21\ is
locked or crossed (e.g., $1.25-$1.20), allocation among multiple FLEX
Quotes and FLEX Orders that are priced at the BBO clearing price and
are on the same side of the market as the RFQ Order is as follows: (i)
FLEX Orders resting in the electronic book will participate in the
execution pursuant to the current book priority algorithm (discussed
above); (ii) if applicable, an RFQ Order for the account of a public
customer or non-TPH broker-dealer will participate in the execution,
then any FLEX Quotes subject to a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker
participation entitlement will participate in the execution based on a
participation entitlement formula (discussed above); (iii) FLEX Quotes
for the account of public customers and non-TPH broker-dealers will
participate in the execution based on time priority; (iv) if
applicable, an RFQ Order for the account of a Trading Permit Holder
will participate in the execution, then any FLEX Quotes that are
subject to a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement will
participate in the execution based on a participation entitlement
formula (discussed above); then (v) all other FLEX Quotes will
participate in the execution based on time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The ``RFQ Market'' means the bids or offers, or both, as
applicable, entered in response to an electronic Request for Quotes
and FLEX Orders resting in the electronic book. See Rule 24B.1(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Intent to Cross Trade Condition/Crossing Participation
Entitlement: In the event the Submitting Trading Permit Holder has
indicated an intention to cross with respect to any part of the FLEX
trade, the Submitting Trading Permit Holder may obtain a crossing
participation entitlement if a crossing participation entitlement has
been established by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 24B.5(d), the
Submitting Trading Permit Holder has indicated an intention to cross as
part of the RFQ, and the RFQ Order submitted during the RFQ Reaction
Period matches or improves the BBO clearing price. In such an event,
the incoming RFQ Order will be eligible to trade with the FLEX Quotes
and FLEX Orders at the BBO clearing price as discussed above. The
allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders that are priced
at the BBO clearing price and on the same side of the market as the
crossing participation entitlement is as follows: (i) FLEX Orders
resting in the electronic book will participate in the execution
pursuant to the current book priority algorithm (discussed above); (ii)
FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-TPH broker-
dealers will participate in the execution based on time priority; (iii)
the crossing participation entitlement will participate in the
execution pursuant to the crossing participation entitlement formula
discussed in Rule 24B.5(d)(2)(i); (iv) any FLEX Quotes subject to a
FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement will participate
in the execution pursuant to the participation entitlement formula
(discussed above); then (v) all other FLEX Quotes will participate in
the execution based on time priority.
    As proposed to be revised and simplified, first, as discussed
above, the Exchange would eliminate the ``Intent to Cross'' Trade
Condition. As a result, the Intent to Cross/Crossing Participation
Entitlement scenario under the electronic RFQ process described above
would no longer be applicable.\22\ Second, the Exchange would eliminate
the concept of a ``BBO clearing price'' (except in the limited scenario
noted below where the RFQ Market is locked or crossed). Thus, an
incoming RFQ Order would be eligible to trade with FLEX Quotes and FLEX
Orders at the best price(s) (i.e., an incoming RFQ Order could trade at
multiple price points). Third, at a given price point, allocation among
multiple FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders at the same price would be as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed changes to Rule 24B.5(a)(1)(iii)(D) and
(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     General: The allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders priced at the same price would be as follows: (i) FLEX
Quotes and FLEX Orders for the account of public customers and non-TPH
broker-dealers will participate in the execution based on time
priority; (ii) any FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders subject to a FLEX
Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement will participate in
the execution (as described above); then (iii) all other FLEX Quotes
and FLEX Orders will participate in the execution based on time
priority.
     Lock/Crossed Markets: In the event the RFQ Market is
locked or crossed (e.g., $1.25-$1.20), FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders
would be eligible to trade at a single BBO clearing price pursuant to
the existing BBO clearing price process (i.e., (i) the BBO clearing
price will leave bids and offers which cannot trade with each other;
and (ii) in determining priority of FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders to be
traded, the System gives priority to FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders whose
price is better than the BBO clearing price, then to FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders at the BBO clearing price based on the general allocation
algorithm noted above). The allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders that are priced at the same price and are on the same side
of the market as the RFQ Order would be as follows: (i) FLEX Quotes and
FLEX Orders for the account of public customers and non-TPH broker-
dealers will participate in the execution based on time priority; (ii)
an RFQ Order will participate in the execution, then any FLEX Quotes
and FLEX Orders that are subject to a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker
participation entitlement will participate in the execution (as
described above); then (iii) all other FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders will
participate in the execution based on time priority.
    All other provisions of Rule 24B.5 will apply unchanged. As noted
above,

these changes re [sic] intended to simplify the allocation algorithms.
The Exchange believes these changes will make the applicable
programming for FLEX allocation algorithms less complicated, which
should make for efficient and effective processing of complex orders
(and also make it easier for users to understand) if there is a more
consistent allocation algorithm applied across the various FLEX
electronic processes described above (i.e., for FLEX electronic book
priority and for FLEX RFQ priority generally and in locked or crossed
and crossing participation entitlement scenarios).
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to the existing series
opening process and allocation algorithms are similar to other existing
opening processes and allocation algorithms.\23\ As such, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change does not present any new, unique
or substantive issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ With respect to the existing series opening process, the
Exchange notes that various exchanges' rules provide for automatic
openings of existing series. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.2B (which, among
other things, provides for an opening rotation to automatically
begin in index options at a randomly selected time within a number
of seconds after 8:30 a.m. for index options). A distinction with
FLEX Options is that an existing series will move immediately to an
opening state (there is no rotation). The Exchange has designed the
system this way for simplicity and due to the customized nature of
FLEX Options, which has no or very limited secondary trading and no
need for daily opening rotations. This aspect of the existing
opening series process is not new or unique. In fact, CBOE Rule
24B.3 already provides that there shall be no trading rotations in
FLEX Options, either at the opening or at the close of trading. With
respect to the allocation algorithm, the Exchange notes that various
exchanges' rules provide for executions at best price(s) and the use
of price-time priority with public customer and participation
entitlement priority overlays. See, e.g., CBOE Rules 6.45A(a) and
6.45B(a) (which, among various allocation algorithm alternatives,
may permit an executions [sic] at best price(s) using price-time
priority with public customer and participation entitlements
priority overlays).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic RFQ Processing of Complex Orders

    The fifth purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the FLEX
System rules to describe certain complex order handling procedures.
Under the current FLEX electronic trading procedures, multi-legged RFQs
and FLEX Orders are permitted. However, there is no provision for an
electronic complex order book for multi-legged, complex orders to rest.
The electronic book, to the extent the Exchange determines to make it
available for a given class, is only available for simple orders.
    To more fully describe the electronic processing of complex orders,
the Exchange is proposing to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 under
Rule 24B.5. This Interpretation and Policy will provide that there is
no electronic complex order book for multi-legged, complex orders. To
trade electronically, complex orders will only be eligible to trade
with other complex orders through the electronic RFQ process described
in Rule 24B.5(a)(1). The order allocation for such complex orders
executed through the RFQ process will [sic] the same as is applicable
to simple orders (which is proposed to be amended as described above
under the ``FLEX Electronic RFQ [sic] heading). To the extent the
Exchange determines to make an electronic book available for simple,
resting FLEX Orders, there will be no ``legging'' of complex orders
represented in the electronic RFQ process with FLEX Orders that may be
represented in the individual series legs represented in the electronic
book. In the event there are bids (offers) in any of the individual
component series legs represented in the electronic book when an
electronic RFQ for a complex order strategy is submitted to the System,
the electronic RFQ will not commence. In the event an unrelated FLEX
Order in any of the individual series legs is received during the
duration of an electronic RFQ, such FLEX Order will not be considered
in the electronic RFQ allocation. Further, to the extent that a complex
RFQ Order or responsive FLEX Quote is not executed, any remaining
balance of the complex order or FLEX Quote will be automated [sic]
cancelled if not traded at the conclusion of the electronic RFQ
process.

Section 11(a)(1) of the Act

    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to the priority
and allocation rules for electronic FLEX trading are consistent with
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act \24\ and the rules promulgated thereunder.
By way of background, when the FLEX Hybrid Trading System was
originally approved, the Commission believed that the priority and
allocation rules for electronic FLEX trading were consistent with
Section 11(a) of the Act.\25\ The Commission believed, however, that
neither a Submitting Trading Permit Holder \26\ who trades against an
electronic RFQ Market nor any other FLEX Trader who itself submits an
RFQ Quote electronically qualifies for the ``effect-versus-execute''
exception to [sic] section 11(a).\27\ Nevertheless, the Commission
believed that other exceptions may apply. For example, FLEX Market-
Makers qualify for the market-maker exception. The Commission also
noted that, with respect to non-market-maker Trading Permit Holders,
the FLEX Hybrid Trading System appeared reasonably designed to cause
RFQ Quotes constituting the RFQ Market and the RFQ Order that trades
against the RFQ Market to yield to non-member interest, consistent with
the ``G'' exception.\28\ The Exchange believes the proposed changes
[sic] the electronic RFQ process and allocation algorithms are
consistent with the Original FLEX System Approval Order because the
System will continue to be designed to cause RFQ Quotes constituting
the RFQ Market and the RFQ Order that trades against the RFQ Market to
yield to non-member interest (i.e., public customers and non-TPH
broker-dealers continue to have priority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a). Section 11(a)(1) prohibits a member of a
national securities exchange from effecting transactions on that
exchange for its own account, the account of an associated person,
or an account over which it or its associated person exercises
discretion unless an exception applies.
    \25\ See Original FLEX System Approval Order, note 5, supra; see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56311 (August 23, 2007), 72
FR 50133 (August 30, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-99) (notice of filing of
the proposed FLEX System), which includes a more detailed discussion
of the priority and allocation rules and section 11(a) and existing
Rule 24B.5(b)(2)(ii) and (d)(4).
    \26\ The Exchange notes that, under the Original FLEX Approval
Order, the term ``Submitting Member'' is used instead of
``Submitting Trading Permit Holder.'' The Exchange subsequently
revised its rules to replace the term ``Member'' with ``Trading
Permit Holder.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62382 (June
25, 2010), 75 FR 38164 (July 1, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-058).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T).
    \28\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G) (setting forth all requirements
for the ``G'' exemption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the electronic book, in the Original FLEX System
Approval Order the Commission noted that, if the Exchange enables an
electronic book in a FLEX Option class, any transaction involving a
booked order must comply with Section 11(a) of the Act. If a FLEX
Trader cannot avail itself of any other exception, it must rely on the
``G'' exception, which requires, among other things, that a member
order yield to a non-member order at the same price, even if the member
order has time priority. It was noted that the FLEX System has not been
programmed to cause a member order on the electronic book to yield to a
later-arriving non-member order at the same price, although Rule
24B.5(b)(2)(ii) prohibits a member order that is relying on the ``G''
exemption from resting on the electronic book. The Commission believed
that a member may rely on the ``G'' exemption if it sends an order to
the electronic book and then cancels it immediately if it is not
executed in full. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to the
electronic book

allocation algorithm are consistent with the Original FLEX System
Approval Order and Trading Permit Holders and Rule 24B.5(b)(2)(ii), a
Trading Permit Holder order that is relying on the ``G'' exemption
continues to be prohibited from resting on the electronic book and such
a Trading Permit Holder may rely on the ``G'' exemption if it sends an
order to the electronic book and then cancels it immediately if it is
not executed in full.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\29\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \30\ in particular in that it should promote just and equitable
principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange
believes that the use of FLEX Options provide CBOE Trading Permit
Holders and investors with additional tools to trade customized options
in an exchange environment \31\ and greater opportunities to manage
risk. The proposed changes to the existing series opening process and
the allocation algorithms should serve to further those objectives and
encourage use of FLEX Options by enhancing and simplifying the existing
processes, which should make the system more efficient and effective
and easier for users to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ FLEX Options provide Trading Permit Holders and investors
with an improved but comparable alternative to the over-the-counter
(``OTC'') market in customized options, which can take on contract
characteristics similar to FLEX Options but are not subject to the
same restrictions. The Exchange believes that making these changes
will make the FLEX Hybrid Trading System an even more attractive
alternative when market participants consider whether to execute
their customized options in an exchange environment or in the OTC
market. CBOE believes market participants benefit from being able to
trade customized options in an exchange environment in several ways,
including, but not limited to the following: (1) Enhanced efficiency
in initiating and closing out positions; (2) increased market
transparency; and (3) heightened contra-party creditworthiness due
to the role of The Options Clearing Corporation as issuer and
guarantor of FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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
proposal.

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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization 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-2011-122 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-122. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. 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-2011-122 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33449 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P