[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24810-24811]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR described the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on November 15,
2013 (Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 221/pp. 68902-68903).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before June 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kathy Sifrit, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2127--New.
    Title: Physical Fitness and Driving Performance.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1227.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: Drivers age 70 and older who have responded to a
solicitation for participation in a study of aging, physical fitness,
and driving safety and have initiated a phone call expressing their
interest in study participation.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: An estimated that 270 respondents
who contact researchers in response to descriptive solicitations.
    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time to respond to
questions in the telephone conversations is 15 minutes for each
conversation with a respondent.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 67.5 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: The questions will be presented a single
time.
    Abstract: Older adults comprise an increasing proportion of the
(driving) population and there is concern about the consequences of
declining physical abilities such as strength, flexibility, and range
of motion on the safe operation of motor vehicles. Previous research
indicates that gains in physical fitness improve a number of abilities
important for safe driving. NHTSA needs to learn more about these
relationships between fitness and driving performance to support the
development of recommendations and educational materials aimed at
improving older driver safety. The objective in this project is to
assess the effect(s) of

physical activity and physical fitness training on the driving
performance of adults 70 and older. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information from licensed
older drivers about their driving habits and levels of physical
activity in order to determine whether they are eligible to participate
in a study of the effects of physical activity on driving performance.
Drivers will volunteer for the study by responding to flyers posted at
a community center, and/or announcements in newsletters and on
community listserves, and/or sign-ups at a weekly farmer's market and
other local events. Interested older drivers will contact a designated
research team member through a toll-free number. Researchers will ask
drivers a brief (<15 minutes) series of questions to determine
eligibility to participate in the study, then describe the proposed
study to respondents who qualify. Each driver who meets study inclusion
criteria will then be asked if he or she wishes to participate. If yes,
a project assistant will ask for a description of the car in order to
identify it and install a data collection system that will collect
driving data necessary for the study. The questions will allow research
staff to ensure that prospective participants meet study inclusion
criteria, are able and willing to wear fitness monitors to measure
physical activity levels, and facilitate installing data collection
instruments in each participant's vehicle. Analyses of these fitness/
activity level and driving data will provide information about whether
people age 70 and older who participate in regular physical activity
perform better in a driving evaluation and/or drive more than do
healthy, sedentary drivers of a similar age; whether particular
physical training activities relate to improved functioning in specific
driving tasks; and the extent to which driving performance and/or
exposure of sedentary older adults will improve, following
participation in physical activity. NHTSA will use the information to
inform recommendations to the public regarding how improved physical
fitness can result in better driving performance for the purpose of
reducing injuries and loss of life on the highway.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2014.
Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-09945 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66209-66211]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1113; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-53-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
(Sikorsky) Model S-92A Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD) for the Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. This proposal would
require inspecting each tail rotor blade (blade) for mislocated
aluminum wire mesh in the blade skin. This proposal is prompted by the
discovery that blades were manufactured with aluminum wire mesh
mislocated, leaving portions of the graphite torque tube (spar) region
unprotected from a lightning strike. This condition can exist in both
the upper and lower blade skin airfoils. The actions specified by this
proposed AD are intended to detect mislocated blade wire mesh and to
prevent spar delamination, loss of the blade tip cap during a lightning
strike, blade

imbalance, loss of a blade, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://
www.sikorsky.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(781) 238-7170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2011-1113,
Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-53-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    This document proposes adopting a new AD for the Sikorsky Model S-
92A helicopters. This proposal would require inspecting each blade for
mislocated aluminum wire mesh in the blade skin. This proposal is
prompted by the discovery that blades were manufactured with aluminum
wire mesh mislocated, leaving portions of the graphite torque tube
(spar) region unprotected from a lightning strike. This condition can
exist on both the upper and lower blade skin airfoils. The actions
specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect mislocated blade
wire mesh to prevent spar delamination and loss of the blade tip cap
during a lightning strike leading to blade imbalance, loss of a blade,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    We have reviewed Sikorsky Special Service Instructions SSI No. 92-
021A, dated October 21, 2009 (SSI), which specifies inspecting the
blade for mislocated blade wire mesh. Two options are identified in the
SSI. One option is to conduct an eddy current inspection and the other
option is to conduct a visual inspection after sanding to determine if
there is mislocated wire mesh.
    This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would
require inspecting each blade to determine if the wire mesh is
mislocated and replacing the blade with an airworthy blade if the wire
mesh is mislocated. The actions would be required to be done by
following the service information described previously.
    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 44 helicopters of
U.S. registry. There are 486 suspect blades worldwide, and we assume 29
percent (141) of those blades may be on helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate that inspecting a blade for mislocated wire mesh would take
about 4 work hours per blade, assuming all operators opt to do the
blade sanding inspection rather than the eddy current inspection, at an
average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost
about $13,000 for each blade repaired by the manufacturer or $180,000
for each new blade. The total cost of the proposed AD for U.S.
operators would be $3,215,940, assuming 51 blades are found with
mislocated wire mesh, and assuming 36 of those blades are replaced with
blades repaired by the manufacturer and 15 blades are replaced with new
blades.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed
AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the draft
economic evaluation.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures

the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2011-1113; Directorate
Identifier 2009-SW-53-AD.

    Applicability: Model S-92A helicopters, tail rotor blade
assembly (blade), part numbers (P/N) 92170-11000-044, -045, and -
046, with a serial number with a prefix of ``A111'' and a number
equal to or less than ``-00585,'' installed, certificated in any
category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
    To detect mislocated blade wire mesh and to prevent spar
delamination, loss of the blade tip cap during a lightning strike,
blade imbalance, loss of a blade, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter, do the following:
    (a) Within 60 days, inspect the upper and lower airfoils of each
tail rotor blade to determine if the wire mesh is mislocated.
    (1) Inspect by using either an eddy current inspection in
accordance with paragraphs B.(1)(a) through B.(1)(o) or using the
hand-sanding method and visually inspecting in accordance with
paragraphs B.(2)(a) through B.(2)(d) of Sikorsky Special Service
Instructions SSI No. 92-021A, Revision A, dated October 21, 2009,
except you are not required to contact or report nonconforming
blades to the manufacturer. If you sand and visually inspect and
confirm the correct location of the wire mesh, touch-up and repaint
the sanded area.
    (2) If there is a blade with a mislocated wire mesh, before
further flight, replace the blade with an airworthy blade.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Attn: Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information
about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6410,
Tail Rotor Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 7, 2011.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27669 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Summary of Summary of EPA Ethics Review EPA Ethics Review Moertel, C.; Ames, M.; Kovach, J.; et al ( 1981) A Pharmacologic and Toxico logical Study of Amygdalin. JAMA 45( 6): 591 594.

( MRID 46769601)

Moertel, C.; Fleming, T.; Rubin, J.; et al ( 1982) A Clinical Trial of Amygdalin ( Laetrile) in the Treatment of Human Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine: 306( 4): 201 206. ( MRID 46769602) 2 Amygdalin Clinical Trial Amygdalin Clinical Trial

Two articles report on the same body of research

A clinical trial of Laetrile for advanced human cancers

Conducted at four centers in U. S. in 1980 1981

Funded by NIH/ NCI

Conducted under FDA IND application 3 Amygdalin Amygdalin " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Undertaken to resolve widespread public and scientific debate about the effectiveness of amygdalin  Results were published, to the benefit of society 4 Amygdalin Amygdalin " Framework Framework"

 2 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 3. Subject Selection  178 Adult male and female volunteers with advanced cancer beyond reach by any conventional therapy  standards for inclusion or exclusion were based on the scientific goals of the study 5 Amygdalin Amygdalin " Framework Framework"

 3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Societal benefit of knowledge expected clearly explained 5. Independent Ethics Review  approved by the FDA under an Investigational New Drug ( IND) application  overseen by the Human Subjects Committee at each of the four participating centers 6 Amygdalin Amygdalin " Framework Framework"

 4 6. Informed Consent  All patients were fully informed about the experimental and unorthodox nature of the treatment program as well as any possible alternative treatment available to them  All patients signed an informed consent 7. Respect for Subjects  Subjects' privacy was not compromised  Subjects were free to withdraw 7 Amydalin Amydalin Prevailing Standards Prevailing Standards

Conducted in the U. S. in 1980 81

Funded by U. S. DHEW/ NIH, so subject to 45 CFR 46

Conducted under FDA IND application,

so subject to 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 8 Comparison to 45 CFR 46 Comparison to 45 CFR 46

Ethical conditions reported much more completely than is typical of published articles from this period

No noteworthy deficiencies relative to DHEW or FDA regulations were found 9 Amygdalin Summary Amygdalin Summary

There is no evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical.

There is no evidence of significant deficiency relative to prevailing ethical standards. 10 Hydrogen Cyanide/

Hydrogen Cyanide/ Amygdalin Amygdalin Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB When sodium cyanide is used as a fumigant,

hydrogen cyanide is generated by acidification.

Because residues of HCN may remain on fumigated citrus, the Agency is conducting an acute dietary risk assessment of hydrogen cyanide. 11 Hydrogen Cyanide/

Hydrogen Cyanide/ Amygdalin Amygdalin Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB 1. Scientific considerations:

The Agency's WOE document describes a lack of data appropriate for developing an acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide. The WOE and DER present the results from a clinical trial with amygdalin and the usefulness of this clinical trial in the acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide. The Agency has concluded that the clinical trial is appropriate for establishing a point of departure in the acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion. 12 2. Ethical considerations:

In its ethics review of this research, EPA did not identify any deficiencies with respect to the ethical conduct of this research. The Agency asks that the Board provide comment on the following, taking into account all that is known about the ethical conduct of this study:

 OPP's conclusion that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the research was fundamentally unethical; and  whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing when the study was conducted.

Hydrogen Cyanide/

Hydrogen Cyanide/ Amygdalin Amygdalin Charge to the HSRB Charge to the HSRB


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46887-46890]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72766; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Series 24 Examination Program

August 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``SEA'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on July 29, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA.
FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as ``constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is filing revisions to the content outline and selection
specifications for the General Securities Principal (Series 24)
examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions update the material to
reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the
examination and to incorporate the functions and associated tasks
currently performed by a General Securities Principal. In addition,
FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the content
outline. FINRA is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws,
Schedules to the By-Laws or Rules of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA also is proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 24 question bank. Based on instruction from SEC staff, FINRA
is submitting this filing for immediate effectiveness pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and
is not filing the question bank for review. See Letter to Alden S.
Adkins, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation,
from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of Market
Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available
for SEC review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised content outline is attached. The Series 24 selection
specifications have been submitted to the Commission under separate
cover with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to SEA Rule
24b-2.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2. The Commission notes that the content
outline is an exhibit to the filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \7\ authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. In accordance with that provision, FINRA
has developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with FINRA members have attained specified levels of
competence and knowledge, consistent with applicable registration
requirements under FINRA rules. FINRA periodically reviews the content
of the examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or
appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered
by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 1022(a) (General Securities Principal) requires that a
``principal'' register and qualify as a General Securities
Principal,\8\ unless the person's activities are so limited as to
qualify such person for one or more of the limited categories of
principal registration, such as a Financial and Operations Principal,
an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal, a
Registered Options Principal, an Investment Company and Variable
Contracts Products Principal, a Direct Participation Programs
Principal, a General Securities Sales Supervisor or a Government
Securities Principal. The rule does not preclude individuals whose
activities are so limited from registering and qualifying as General
Securities Principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``principal'' is defined in NASD Rule 1021(b)
(Definition of Principal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 1022(a) also requires that a member's chief compliance
officer (``CCO'') designated on Schedule A of the member's Form BD
(Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration) be registered and
qualified as a General Securities Principal. If a member's activities
are limited to investment company and variable contracts products,
direct participation programs or government securities, the member's
CCO may instead be registered and qualified as an Investment Company
and Variable Contracts Principal, Direct Participation Programs
Principal or Government Securities Principal, respectively. In
addition, for purposes of the CCO requirement for members of FINRA that
are also members of the NYSE, FINRA recognizes the NYSE Compliance

Official (Series 14) examination as an acceptable alternative to the
principal examination requirements for General Securities Principal,
Investment Company and Variable Contracts Principal or Direct
Participation Programs Principal, as applicable.
    Pursuant to NASD Rule 1022(a), a General Securities Principal is
not qualified to function as a Financial and Operations Principal, an
Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal, a
Registered Options Principal, a General Securities Sales Supervisor, a
Municipal Securities Principal or a Municipal Fund Securities Limited
Principal, unless the General Securities Principal is also registered
and qualified in these other categories.
    Further, a General Securities Principal is not qualified to
supervise the conduct of a Research Analyst or Supervisory Analyst
engaged in equity research, unless the General Securities Principal has
passed the Regulatory Administration and Best Practices (Series 87)
portion of the Research Analyst examination or the Supervisory Analyst
(Series 16) examination and is registered as a Research Principal.
    A person seeking to register as a General Securities Principal must
satisfy the General Securities Representative prerequisite registration
or another acceptable prerequisite registration.\9\ While registration
as a Corporate Securities Representative, Private Securities Offerings
Representative or Investment Banking Representative satisfies the
prerequisite registration requirement for a General Securities
Principal, such a principal will only have limited supervisory
authority consistent with his or her representative category. In
addition, NASD Rule 1022(a) requires that a General Securities
Principal with responsibility over specific investment banking
activities satisfy the Investment Banking Representative registration
requirements, regardless of any other prerequisite registration. A
person registering as a General Securities Principal must also pass the
Series 24 qualification examination or an alternative examination.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The other acceptable prerequisite registrations are: United
Kingdom Securities Representative; Canada Securities Representative;
Investment Banking Representative; Corporate Securities
Representative; or Private Securities Offerings Representative. See
NASD Rule 1022(a)(1)(A); Regulatory Notice 09-41 (July 2009); and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57073 (December 31, 2007), 73 FR
1382 (January 8, 2008) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of File No. SR-FINRA-2007-028).
    \10\ A person who is registered as a General Securities Sales
Supervisor (Series 9/10) and passes the General Securities Principal
Sales Supervisor Module (Series 23) examination is also qualified to
function as a General Securities Principal. In conjunction with the
proposed rule change, FINRA is filing revisions to the content
outline and selection specifications for the Series 23 examination
program. See SR-FINRA-2014-034 (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Revise the Series 23
Examination Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consultation with a committee of industry representatives, FINRA
recently undertook a review of the Series 24 examination program. As a
result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the
content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations
covered by the examination and to incorporate the functions and
associated tasks currently performed by a General Securities Principal.
FINRA also is proposing to make changes to the format of the content
outline.
Current Outline
    The current content outline is divided into five sections. The
following are the five sections and the number of questions associated
with each of the sections, denoted Section 1 through Section 5:
    1. Supervision of Investment Banking, Underwriting Activities and
Research, 33 questions;
    2. Supervision of Trading and Market Making Activities, 31
questions;
    3. Supervision of Brokerage Office Operations, 29 questions;
    4. Sales Supervision and General Supervision of Employees, 43
questions; and
    5. Compliance with Financial Responsibility Rules, 14 questions.
    Each section also includes the applicable laws, rules and
regulations associated with that section. The current outline also
includes a preface (addressing, among other things, the purpose,
administration and scoring of the examination), sample questions and
reference materials.
Proposed Revisions
    FINRA is proposing to divide the content outline into five major
job functions that are performed by a General Securities Principal. The
following are the five major job functions, denoted Function 1 through
Function 5, with the associated number of questions:
    Function 1: Supervision of Registration of the Broker-Dealer and
Personnel Management Activities, 9 questions;
    Function 2: Supervision of General Broker-Dealer Activities, 45
questions;
    Function 3: Supervision of Retail and Institutional Customer-
Related Activities, 32 questions;
    Function 4: Supervision of Trading and Market Making Activities, 32
questions; and
    Function 5: Supervision of Investment Banking and Research, 32
questions.
    FINRA is also proposing to adjust the number of questions assigned
to each major job function to ensure that the overall examination
better reflects the key tasks performed by a General Securities
Principal. The questions on the revised Series 24 examination will
place greater emphasis on key tasks such as supervision of registered
persons, sales practices and compliance.
    Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities
associated with performing that function. There are two tasks (1.1-1.2)
associated with Function 1; seven tasks (2.1-2.7) associated with
Function 2; three tasks (3.1-3.3) associated with Function 3; three
tasks (4.1-4.3) associated with Function 4; and three tasks (5.1-5.3)
associated with Function 5.\11\ By way of example, one such task (Task
2.1) is to develop, implement and update firm's policies, written
supervisory procedures (WSP) and controls for applicable rules and
regulations; and implement appropriate monitoring and testing.\12\
Further, the outline lists the knowledge required to perform each
function and associated tasks (e.g., business and regulatory
requirements for firm's systems and technologies).\13\ In addition,
where applicable, the outline lists the laws, rules and regulations a
candidate is expected to know to perform each function and associated
tasks. These include the applicable FINRA Rules (e.g., FINRA Rule
2090), NASD Rules (e.g., NASD Rule 2510) and SEC rules (e.g., SEA Rule
15c1-7).\14\ FINRA conducted a job analysis study of General Securities
Principals, which included the use of a survey, in developing each
function and associated tasks and updating the required knowledge set
forth in the revised outline. The functions and associated tasks, which
appear in the revised outline for the first time, reflect the day-to-
day activities of a General Securities Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Pages 6-29. The Commission notes
that Exhibit 3a is an exhibit to the filing, not to this Notice.
    \12\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 9.
    \13\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 9.
    \14\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, FINRA also is proposing to revise the content
outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination.

Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the content outline
to reflect the adoption of rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook
(e.g., NASD Rule 2310 (Recommendations to Customers (Suitability), NASD
Rule 2212 (Telemarketing) and NASD Rule 3110 (Books and Records) were
adopted as FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability), FINRA Rule 3230
(Telemarketing) and FINRA Rule 4510 Series (Books and Records
Requirements), respectively)).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule Conversion Chart, available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/FINRARules/p085560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 24 selection
specifications and question bank.
    Finally, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the
content outline, including the preface, sample questions and reference
materials. Among other changes, FINRA is proposing to: (1) Add a table
of contents; \16\ (2) provide more details regarding the purpose of the
examination; \17\ (3) provide more details on the application
procedures; \18\ (4) provide more details on the development and
maintenance of the content outline and examination; \19\ (5) explain
that the passing scores are established by FINRA staff, in consultation
with a committee of industry representatives, using a standard setting
procedure and that the scores are an absolute standard independent of
the performance of candidates taking the examination; \20\ and (6) note
that each candidate will receive a score report at the end of the test
session, which will indicate a pass or fail status and include a score
profile listing the candidate's performance on each major content area
covered on the examination.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 2.
    \17\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 3.
    \18\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 3.
    \19\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 4.
    \20\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 5.
    \21\ See Exhibit 3a, Outline Page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of questions on the Series 24 examination will remain at
150 multiple-choice questions,\22\ and candidates will continue to have
3 hours and 45 minutes to complete the examination. Currently, a score
of 70 percent is required to pass the examination. The passing score
will remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Consistent with FINRA's practice of including ``pre-test''
questions on certain qualification examinations, which is designed
to ensure that new examination questions meet acceptable testing
standards prior to use for scoring purposes, the examination
includes 10 additional, unidentified pre-test questions that do not
contribute towards the candidate's score. Therefore, the examination
actually consists of 160 questions, 150 of which are scored. The 10
pre-test questions are randomly distributed throughout the
examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Availability of Content Outlines
    The current Series 24 content outline is available on FINRA's Web
site, at www.finra.org/brokerqualifications/exams. The revised Series
24 content outline will replace the current content outline on FINRA's
Web site.
    FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 24
examination program on October 13, 2014. FINRA will announce the
proposed rule change and the implementation date in a Regulatory
Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 24
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\23\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\24\ which authorizes FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. FINRA believes that the proposed
revisions will further these purposes by updating the examination
program to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered
by the examination and to incorporate the functions and associated
tasks currently performed by a General Securities Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns
with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a
General Securities Principal and tests knowledge of the most current
laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to those functions and
associated tasks. As such, the proposed revisions would make the
examination more efficient and effective.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\26\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2014-035 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-FINRA-2014-035. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2014-035 and should be submitted on or before September 2,
2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18881 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40104-40108]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92448; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule for the Complex PRIME
Agency Order Credit

July 20, 2021.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 12, 2021, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, 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 the Fee Schedule to (i) modify the
Priority Customer Rebate Program (``PCRP'') \3\ as it pertains to per
contract credits for complex PRIME (``cPRIME'') \4\ Agency Orders for
Priority Customers; and (ii) to remove the per contract credit cap for
cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers and the associated waiver
of same which was in effect until June 30, 2021. The Exchange initially
filed this proposal on July 1, 2021 (SR-MIAX-2021-33) and withdrew such
filing on July 12, 2021. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective July 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the PCRP, MIAX Options credits each Member the per
contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer order
transmitted by that Member which is executed electronically on the
Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding, in simple
or complex as applicable, QCC and cQCC Orders, mini-options,
Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, C2C and cC2C Orders,
PRIME and cPRIME AOC Responses, PRIME and cPRIME Contra-side Orders,
PRIME and cPRIME Orders for which both the Agency and Contra-side
Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to contracts
that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the
Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced
in Exchange Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain percentage
thresholds in a month as described in the Priority Customer Rebate
Program table. See Fee Schedule, Section (1)(a)iii.
    \4\ ``cPRIME'' is the process by which a Member may
electronically submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Rule
518(b)(7)) it represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'')
against principal or solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME
Auction''), subject to the restrictions set forth in Exchange Rule
515A, Interpretation and Policy .12. See Exchange Rule 515A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Exchange Rule 518(b)(7) defines a cPRIME Order as a type of complex
order \5\ that is submitted for participation in a cPRIME Auction and
trading of cPRIME Orders is governed by Rule 515A, Interpretation and

Policies .12.\6\ CPRIME Orders are processed and executed in the
Exchange's PRIME mechanism, the same mechanism that the Exchange uses
to process and execute simple PRIME orders, pursuant to Exchange Rule
515A.\7\ PRIME is a process by which a Member \8\ may electronically
submit for execution an order it represents as agent (an ``Agency
Order'') against principal interest and/or solicited interest. The
Member that submits the Agency Order (``Initiating Member'') agrees to
guarantee the execution of the Agency Order by submitting a contra-side
order representing principal interest or solicited interest (``Contra-
Side Order''). When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency
Order for Auction processing, a request for response (``RFR'')
detailing the option, side, size and initiating price is broadcasted to
MIAX participants up to an optional designated limit price. Members may
submit responses to the RFR, which can be either an Auction or Cancel
(``AOC'') order \9\ or an AOC eQuote.\10\ A cPRIME Auction is the
price-improvement mechanism of the Exchange's System pursuant to which
an Initiating Member electronically submits a complex Agency Order into
a cPRIME Auction. The Initiating Member, in submitting an Agency Order,
must be willing to either (i) cross the Agency Order at a single price
against principal or solicited interest, or (ii) automatically match
against principal or solicited interest, the price and size of a RFR
that is broadcast to MIAX participants up to an optional designated
limit price. Such responses are defined as cPRIME AOC Responses or
cPRIME eQuotes. The PRIME mechanism is used for orders on the
Exchange's Simple Order Book.\11\ The cPRIME mechanism is used for
Complex Orders \12\ on the Exchange's Strategy Book,\13\ with the
cPRIME mechanism operating in the same manner for processing and
execution of cPRIME Orders that is used for PRIME Orders on the Simple
Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. A complex order can also be a ``stock-option'' order,
which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying security coupled with the purchase or sale of options
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market, subject to certain
contingencies set forth in the proposed rules governing complex
orders. For a complete definition of a ``complex order,'' see
Exchange Rule 518(a)(5). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 78620 (August 18, 2016), 81 FR 58770 (August 25, 2016) (SR-MIAX-
2016-26).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81131 (July 12,
2017), 82 FR 32900 (July 18, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-19) (Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend MIAX Options Rules 515,
Execution of Orders and Quotes; 515A, MIAX Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism; and 518,
Complex Orders).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \9\ An Auction-or-Cancel or ``AOC'' order is a limit order used
to provide liquidity during a specific Exchange process (such as the
Opening Imbalance process described in Rule 503) with a time in
force that corresponds with that event. AOC orders are not displayed
to any market participant, are not included in the MBBO and
therefore are not eligible for trading outside of the event, may not
be routed, and may not trade at a price inferior to the away
markets. See Exchange Rule 516(b)(4).
    \10\ An Auction or Cancel or ``AOC'' eQuote is a quote submitted
by a Market Maker to provide liquidity in a specific Exchange
process (such as the Opening Imbalance Process described in Rule
503) with a time in force that corresponds with the duration of that
event and will automatically expire at the end of that event. AOC
eQuotes are not displayed to any market participant, are not
included in the MBBO and therefore are not eligible for trading
outside of the event. An AOC eQuote does not automatically cancel or
replace the Market Maker's previous Standard quote or eQuote. See
Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(ii).
    \11\ The ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(15).
    \12\ See supra note 6. Mini-options may only be part of a
complex order that includes other mini-options. Only those complex
orders in the classes designated by the Exchange and communicated to
Members via Regulatory Circular with no more than the applicable
number of legs, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class
basis and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, are
eligible for processing. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
    \13\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Contract Cap
    In conjunction with the implementation of cPRIME Orders on the
Exchange, the Exchange amended its Priority Customer Rebate Program to
establish a per contract credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders for
Priority Customers.\14\ The Exchange limited the cPRIME Agency Order
Credit to be payable only to the first 1,000 contracts per leg for each
cPRIME Agency Order in all tiers under the PCRP in its filing on August
1, 2018.\15\ On February 28, 2020, the Exchange amended the Fee
Schedule to waive the 1,000 contract cap per leg for cPRIME Agency
Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP from March 1, 2020, until
May 31, 2020.\16\ The Exchange subsequently extended the waiver from
June 1, 2020, until June 30, 2021, in a series of filings beginning
June 2020.\17\ The Exchange now proposes to remove footnote ``*'' in
Section (1)(a)(iii) of the Fee Schedule in its entirety to remove the
per contract credit cap of 1,000 contracts and to also eliminate the
waiver of the contract cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for
all tiers under the PCRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81372 (August 10,
2017) 82 FR 38964 (August 16, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-40).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No.83797 (August 8,
2018), 83 FR 40373 (August 14, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-22).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88349 (March 10,
2020), 85 FR 14995 (March 16, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-05).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 89035 (June 9,
2020), 85 FR 36249 (June 15, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-12) (Extending the
waiver period from June 1, 2020, until July 31, 2020); 89530 (August
12, 2020), 85 FR 50845 (August 18, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-26)
(Extending the waiver period from July 31, 2020, until August 31,
2020); 89771 (September 4, 2020), 85 FR 55873 (September 10, 2020)
(SR-MIAX-2020-28) (Extending the waiver period from August 31, 2020,
until December 31, 2020); 90818 (December 29, 2020), 86 FR 350
(January 5, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2020-40) (Extending the waiver period
from December 31, 2020, until March 31, 2021); and 91505 (April 8,
2021), 86 FR 19677 (April 14, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-07) (Extending the
waiver period from April 1, 2021, until June 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

cPRIME Agency Order per Contract Credit
    In conjunction with the removal of the per credit cap of 1,000
contracts as described above, the Exchange now proposes to adopt a new
table under the PCRP for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers
where the max leg of the order is greater than 1,000 contracts. The
table will provide a tiered agency credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders
for Priority Customers dependent upon the break-up percentage and the
largest leg of the order being greater than 1,000 contracts for Members
in PCRP Tiers 1-4, unless the Member is eligible to receive the
alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount for cPRIME Agency Orders
in Tier 4 of the PRCP,\18\ in which case those orders will earn a
credit of $0.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Under the PCRP, any Member or its Affiliate that qualifies
for Priority Customer Rebate Program tier 4 and executes Priority
Customer standard, non-paired complex volume at least equal to or
greater than three (3) times their Priority Customer cPRIME Agency
Order volume, on a monthly basis, will receive a credit of $0.12 per
contract for cPRIME Agency Orders instead of the credit otherwise
applicable to such orders in tier 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Orders that have a max leg size of 1,000 contracts or less will
continue to receive the agency credit described in PCRP Tier 1-4,
unless the Member is eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency
Order Credit amount for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in
which case the order will earn a per contract credit of $0.12.\19\ The
Exchange proposes to adopt new footnote ``*'' to state that for cPRIME
Agency Orders with a max leg size of 1,000 contracts or less, the
Exchange will assess the credits as described in the Priority Customer
Rebate Program table for Tiers 1-4 regardless of the Order Break-up
percentage. Additionally, the break-up credits described in section
(1)(a)(vi) of the Fee Schedule will continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The table will provide a per contract agency credit based upon the
break-up percentage of the order. Specifically, orders with a break-up
% of 0-10% will earn a credit of $0.05 per contract; orders with a
break-up percentage

greater than 10% to, and including 20%, will earn a per contract credit
of $0.06; orders with a break-up percentage greater than 20% to, and
including 30%, will earn a per contract credit of $0.07; orders with a
break-up percentage greater than 30% to, and including 40%, will earn a
per contract credit of $0.08; orders with a break-up percentage greater
than 40% will earn a per contract credit of $0.10, unless the Member is
eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount
for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in which case the order
will earn a per contract credit of $0.12.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if the cPRIME Agency Order has two legs (one for 400
contracts and the other for 1,200 contracts) and trades 30% with an AOC
Response, the order would receive an agency credit of $0.07 per
contract for all legs of the order, as the max leg of the order was
greater than 1,000 contracts and 30% of the order was broken up. The
portion of the order that was broken up will also receive the agency
credit of $0.07 per contract.
    The decision to offer tiered cPRIME agency credits and to remove
the credit cap is based on an analysis of current revenue and volume
levels and is designed to encourage Priority Customer order flow to the
Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \22\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More
specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which
market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of
the market share.\23\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single options exchange possess significant
pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue use of certain categories of products,
in response to fee changes. For example, on March 1, 2019, the Exchange
filed with the Commission an immediately effective filing to decrease
certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to the PCRP.\24\ The
Exchange experienced a decrease in total market share between the
months of February and March of 2019. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the March 1, 2019, fee change may have contributed to the
decrease in the Exchange's market share and, as such, the Exchange
believes competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction and
non-transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85301 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10166 (March 19, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable. In response to the competitive environment, the
Exchange offers specific rates and credits in its fees schedule, like
those of other options exchanges' fees schedules, which the Exchange
believes provides incentives to Members to increase order flow of
certain qualifying orders.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the 1,000
contract cap limitation per leg of cPRIME Agency Orders and the
associated waiver of same, and the proposed per contract credit rebate
table will encourage Priority Customer order flow to auctions.
Increased Priority Customer order flow benefits all market participants
because it continues to attract liquidity to the Exchange by providing
more trading opportunities. This attracts Market Makers and other
liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price improvement in the
auction process, signaling additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants, and, as a result, increasing
liquidity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a tiered approach
to rebates for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposal is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above,
the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Exchange is
only one of several options venues to which market participants may
direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the
overall market. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that
competing options exchanges offer similar fees and credits in
connection with similar price improvement auctions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Fee Schedule, ``Break-Up Credits,'' available at
https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/members_hip/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers that have a max leg
size of 1,000 contracts or less will continue to receive the agency
credit described in PCRP Tier 1-4, unless the Member is eligible to
receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount for cPRIME
Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in which case the order will earn
a per contract credit of $0.12.\26\ The Exchange believes that
establishing a 1,000 contract threshold is not new or novel as other
exchanges have different pricing and rates (i.e., caps) for volume over
1,000 contracts.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 18.
    \27\ See Cboe Fees Schedule, p.2; see also NYSE American Fee
Schedule, p. 18, footnote 2 under Section I.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new table to provide a tiered
credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers whose
largest leg size is greater than 1,000 contracts is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \28\ because it applies equally to all
participants of the PCRP. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rebate structure is fair, equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The PCRP is reasonably designed because it will
continue to provide an incentive to providers of Priority Customer
order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange to
receive a credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its
overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all
participants. The

Exchange conducted an internal analysis of fees and rebates associated
with cPRIME Agency Orders and determined the proposed applicable rates
at each Order Break-up %. For pricing and competitive reasons the
Exchange determined that the agency credit for Order Break-ups from 0%-
40% would be tiered, and that Order Break-ups of greater than 40% would
receive a standard agency credit of $0.10, unless the Member is
eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount
for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in which case the order
will earn a per contract credit of $0.12.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \29\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \30\ because it perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and protects
investors and the public interest because an increase in Priority
Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity to the
Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads. To the extent Priority
Customer order flow is increased by this proposal, market participants
will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange
including sending more orders and provided narrower and larger-sized
quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing rebates for Priority Customers
that submit cPRIME Agency Orders is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed rebate schedule will apply equally
to all cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers. The Exchange
believes that the application of the rebate is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because, as stated above, Priority Customer
order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange, in turn providing more
trading opportunities and attracting other market participants, thus,
facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow and trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the
options industry has a long history of providing preferential pricing
to Priority Customer orders, and the Exchange's current fees schedule
currently does so in many places, as does the fee structure of at least
one other exchange.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\32\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intra-market or intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as
discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
encourage the submission of additional liquidity to price improvement
auctions, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution and price improvement
opportunities for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
will apply uniformly to all eligible Priority Customer orders. The
proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that this proposal will continue to
encourage Members to submit cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority
Customers, which will increase liquidity and benefit all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. The Exchange notes the fact that preferential pricing to
Priority Customers is a long-standing options industry practice. The
proposed rebate changes serve to enhance Priority Customer order flow
to the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism, which, as a result,
facilitates increased liquidity and execution opportunities to the
benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange also does not believe that its proposal will impose
any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as noted
above, at least one other competing options exchange \34\ currently has
similar rebates in place in connection with similar price improvement
auctions. Additionally, and as previously discussed, the Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they participate on and direct their order flow
to, including 15 other options exchanges, many of which offer
substantially similar price improvement auctions. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of
the market share.\35\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of option order flow. Participants can
readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges if they deem fee
levels at those other exchanges to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \36\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
states as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . .'' \37\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See supra note 27.
    \35\ See supra note 23.
    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \37\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will
continue to encourage order flow, which provides greater volume and
liquidity, benefiting all market participants by providing more

trading opportunities and tighter spreads.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\38\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \39\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2021-34 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-MIAX-2021-34. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-34, and should be submitted on
or before August 16, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15809 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22998-22999]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10500]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83217; File No. SR-IEX-2018-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Establish a New Optional Listing Category on the Exchange,
``LTSE Listings on IEX''

May 11, 2018.
    On March 15, 2018, Investors Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish a new optional
listing category on the Exchange, ``LTSE Listings on IEX.'' The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 2, 2018.\3\ The Commission received 23 comment letters on the
proposed rule change.\4\ On April 26, 2018, the Commission received a
response letter from the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82948 (March 27,
2018), 83 FR 14074 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Tony Davis, CEO, Inherent Group, dated April 19, 2018; Morgan
Housel, Partner, The Collaborative Fund, dated April 20, 2018; Chris
Brummer, Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Institution of
International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center, dated
April 22, 2018; Reid Hoffman, Partner, Greylock Partners, dated
April 23, 2018; Judith Samuelson, Vice President, Founder &
Director, The Business & Society Program, and Alastair Fitzpayne,
Executive Director, The Future of Work Initiative, The Aspen
Institute, dated April 23, 2018; John Buhl, dated April 23, 2018;
Marcie Frost, Chief Executive Officer, California Public Employees'
Retirement System Investment Office, dated April 23, 2018; Sam
Altman, President, Y Combinator, dated April 23, 2018; Marc
Andreessen, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz,
dated April 23, 2018; Tony Hsieh, Founder, Downtown Project, dated
April 23, 2018; Steve Case, Chairman and CEO, Revolution, dated
April 23, 2018; Douglas K. Chia, Executive Director, Governance
Center, The Conference Board, Inc., dated April 23, 2018; Dick
Costolo, dated April 23, 2018; Chris Concannon, President and COO,
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.; Jeff Weiner, CEO, LinkedIn, dated April
23, 2018; Aneesh Chopra, President, CareJourney, dated April 23,
2018; Brian Singerman, Partner, Founders Fund, dated April 23, 2018;
James Anderson, Partner and Head of Global Equities, Baillie Gifford
& Co, dated April 23, 2018; David Brown and David Cohen, Founders
and Co-CEOs, Techstars, dated April 23, 2018; Evan Williams, Co-
Founder and James Joaquin, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Obvious
Ventures, dated April 23, 2018; Andrew Mason, CEO, Descript, dated
April 23, 2018; Alexis Ohanian, General Partner/Cofounder, and Garry
Tan, Managing Partner/Cofounder, Initialized Capital, dated April
23, 2018; Aaron Bertinetti, SVP, Research & Engagement, Glass, Lewis
& Co., LLC, dated April 23, 2018. All comments received by the
Commission on the proposed rule change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-iex-2018-06/iex201806.htm.
    \5\ See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Claudia Crowley, Chief Regulatory Officer, Investors Exchange LLC,
dated April 26, 2018. The Exchange's response letter is available
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-iex-2018-6/iex201806-3520149-162294.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is May 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
Exchange's proposed rule change, the comments received, and the
Exchange's response to comments.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act \7\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates July 1,
2018 as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-IEX-2018-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10500 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72016-72018]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65741; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Renew Existing Pilot Program for an Additional Fourteen
Months

 November 14, 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 November 4, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities

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

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

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

    CBOE proposes to renew an existing pilot program for an additional
fourteen months. Under the existing pilot program, the Exchange is
permitted to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes that
expire on: (a) Any Friday of the month, other than the third Friday-of-
the-month (``End of Week Expirations''), and (b) the last trading day
of the month (``End of Month Expirations''). 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'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 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to
establish a pilot program under which the Exchange is permitted to list
P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on (a) Any Friday
of the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-month (``End of Week
Expirations'' or ``EOWs''), and (b) the last trading day of the month
(``End of Month Expirations'' or ``EOMs'').\5\ Under the terms of the
End of Week/End of Month Expirations Pilot Program (``Program''), EOWs
and EOMs are permitted on any broad-based index that is eligible for
regular options trading. EOWs and EOMs are cash-settled and have
European-style exercise. The proposal became effective on a pilot basis
for a period of fourteen months that commenced on the next full month
after approval was received to establish the Program and the Program is
scheduled to expire on December 14, 2011. CBOE believes that the
Program has been successful and well received by its Trading Permit
Holders and the investing public during that the time that it has been
in operation. The Exchange hereby proposes to extend the Program for an
additional fourteen months, so that it will expire on February 14,
2013. This proposal does not request any other changes to the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62911 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2009-075).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the order approving the establishment of the Program,
two months prior to the conclusion of the pilot period, CBOE is
required to submit an annual report to the Commission, which addresses
the following areas: Analysis of Volume & Open Interest, Monthly
Analysis of EOW & EOM Trading Patterns and Provisional Analysis of
Index Price Volatility. The Exchange has submitted, under separate
cover, the annual report in connection with the present proposed rule
change. Confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act is
requested regarding the annual report.
    If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of
the Program, or should the Exchange propose to make the Program
permanent (which the Exchange currently intends to do), the Exchange
will submit an annual report (addressing the same areas referenced
above and consistent with the order approving the establishment of the
Program) to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration
date of the Program. The annual report will be provided to the
Commission on a confidential basis. Any positions established under the
Program will not be impacted by the expiration of the Program.
    The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and
demand in the Program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes
that the Program has provided investors with additional means of
managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment
objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange has not experienced any adverse
market effects with respect to the Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Program
will not have an adverse impact on capacity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \6\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act'') and the rules and regulations under the Act, in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the Pilot has been successful to date and states that it has not
encountered any problems with the Pilot. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that there is demand for the expirations offered under the
Pilot and believes that that EOWs and EOMs will continue to provide the
investing public and other market participants increased opportunities
to better manage their risk exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the

proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-2011-100 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-2011-100. 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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-100 and should be
submitted on or before December 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29869 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 17005]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06975]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9032-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 03/27/2017 Through 03/31/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170052, Draft, FEMA, NAT, PROGRAMMATIC--National Flood
Insurance Program, Comment Period Ends: 06/06/2017, Contact: Bret Gates
202-646-2780

    Dated: April 4, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-06975 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P