[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12336-12337]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0293; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-5]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Plainville, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Plainville, CT, to
accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Robertson Field
Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points can be viewed online at the FAA Air Traffic Plans and
Publications Web site at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7400.9Y.pdf. An additional link on this site entitled Airspace
Amendments is updated routinely with the most current airspace
designations and reporting points. It may also be viewed online at
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 17, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Robertson Field Airport, Plainville, CT, (79 FR 62366). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous
positive comment was received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of Robertson Field Airport,
Plainville, CT. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Robertson Field
Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Robertson Field Airport,
Plainville, CT.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE CT E5 Plainville, CT [New]

Robertson Field Airport, CT
    (Lat. 41[deg]41'22'' N., long. 72[deg]51'53'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.5-mile radius of Robertson Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 25, 2015.
Gerald E. Lynch,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-05110 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55167-55170]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0379]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 6
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that
interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' The regulation and the associated advisory
criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV
drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA
grants exemptions that will allow these 6 individuals to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt
State laws and regulations and may be renewed.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 14, 2015. The exemptions
expire on September 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by letter to FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground
level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period.
    FMCSA grants 6 individuals an exemption from the regulatory
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take
anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-
year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the
length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each
individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each
applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) \1\ for commercial driver's license (CDL)
holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).\2\ For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing
agency. The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers covered by the exemptions granted here have
demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical
condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the
Agency considered both current medical literature and information and
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP).
The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the
regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review
of scientific literature that was compiled into the ``Evidence Report
on Seizure Disorders and Commercial Vehicle Driving'' (Evidence Report)
[CD-ROM HD TL230.3 .E95 2007]. The Agency then convened a panel of
medical experts in the field of neurology (the MEP) on May 14-15, 2007,
to review 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and the advisory criteria regarding
individuals who have experienced a seizure, and the 2007 Evidence
Report. The Evidence Report and the MEP recommendations are published
on-line at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/medical/reports-how-medical-conditions-impact-driving, under Seizure Disorders, and are in
the docket for this notice.

MEP Criteria for Evaluation

    On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended
criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a
seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.\3\ The MEP
recommendations are included in previously published dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Engel, J., Fisher, R.S., Krauss, G.L., Krumholz, A., and
Quigg, M.S., ``Expert Panel Recommendations: Seizure Disorders and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' FMCSA, October 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epilepsy diagnosis. If there is an epilepsy diagnosis, the
applicant should be seizure-free for 8 years, on or off medication. If
the individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with an epilepsy diagnosis should be
performed every year.
    Single unprovoked seizure. If there is a single unprovoked seizure
(i.e., there is no known trigger for the seizure), the individual
should be seizure-free for 4 years, on or off medication. If the
individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with a single unprovoked seizure should be
performed every 2 years.
    Single provoked seizure. If there is a single provoked seizure
(i.e., there is a known reason for the seizure), the Agency should
consider specific criteria that fall into the following two categories:
low-risk factors for recurrence and moderate-to-high risk factors for
recurrence.
     Examples of low-risk factors for recurrence include
seizures that were caused by a medication; by non-penetrating head
injury with loss of consciousness less than or equal to 30 minutes; by
a brief loss of consciousness not likely to recur while driving; by
metabolic derangement not likely to recur; and by alcohol or illicit
drug withdrawal.
     Examples of moderate-to-high-risk factors for recurrence
include seizures caused by non-penetrating head injury with loss of
consciousness or amnesia greater than 30 minutes, or penetrating head
injury; intracerebral hemorrhage associated with a stroke or trauma;
infections; intracranial hemorrhage; post-operative complications from
brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage; brain tumor; or
stroke.

The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk
conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single
provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be
recertified every year.

Medical Review Board Recommendations and Agency Decision

    FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the Evidence Report to the
Medical Review Board (MRB) for consideration. The MRB reviewed and
considered the 2007 ``Seizure Disorders and Commercial Driver Safety''
evidence report and the 2007 MEP recommendations. The MRB recommended
maintaining the current advisory criteria, which provide that ``drivers
with a history of epilepsy/seizures off anti-seizure medication and
seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked
seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if
seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5 year period or
more'' [Advisory criteria to 49 CFR 391.43(f)].
    The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but
believes relevant current medical evidence

supports a less conservative approach. The medical advisory criteria
for epilepsy and other seizure or loss of consciousness episodes was
based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial
Drivers'' (NITS Accession No. PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can
be found in the docket referenced in this notice.
    The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a
seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and
circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting
drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history
and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007
MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case
basis.

C. Exemptions

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from
each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)
to 6 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 6 drivers
receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been
considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce
except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-
seizure medication. For these 6 drivers, the primary obstacle to
medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical
Examiners, based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and
Commercial Drivers,'' stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure
medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the
Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of
a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are
taking anti-seizure medication.
    In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant,
FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 6 drivers, some of
whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS
were searched for crash and violation data on the 6 applicants. For
non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency.
    These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable
treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year
exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from
their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and
that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an
annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR
390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical
qualifications for CMV drivers.
    FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested
public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a Federal
Register notice for each of the applicants. A short summary of the
applicants' qualifications and a discussion of the comments received
follows this section. For applicants who were denied an exemption, a
notice was previously published.

D. Comments

Docket #FMCSA-2014-0379

    On November 24, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications and requested public comment on 12 individuals
(79 FR 69981; Docket number FMCSA-2014-27755). The comment period ended
on December 24, 2014. Two commenters responded to this notice
expressing support for the epilepsy standard and the duty to keep our
roads safe. Of the 12 applicants, six were denied. The Agency has
determined that the following six applicants should be granted an
exemption.
Theodore C. Banet
    Mr. Banet is a 43 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history
of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since that time. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV.
His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Banet receiving an
exemption.
David S. Campbell
    Mr. Campbell is a 70 year-old driver in Massachusetts. He has a
history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Campbell
receiving an exemption.
Lewis R. Holbrook
    Mr. Holbrook is a 43 year-old driver in North Carolina. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2004.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2005. If granted the exemption, he would like
to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Holbrook receiving an exemption.
Dominick Rezza
    Mr. Rezza is a 58 year-old class A CDL holder in Texas. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1995.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 1996. If granted the exemption, he would like
to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Rezza
receiving an exemption.
Edgar A. Snapp
    Mr. Snapp is a 52 year-old class B CDL holder in Indiana. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1988.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Snapp receiving an exemption.
Gregory W. Young
    Mr. Young is a 50 year-old class A CDL holder in South Carolina. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1983. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2004. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Young receiving
an exemption.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption,
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the
Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of
safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to
drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to
driving in intrastate commerce.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 6 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of
each driver's safety experience, and medical condition. Safety analysis
of information relating to these 6 applicants meets the burden of
showing

that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without
the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV industry
will gain 6 highly trained and experienced drivers. In accordance with
49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for 2 years, with
annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails
to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 6 drivers for a period of 2 years with
annual medical certification required: Theodore Banet (PA); David
Campbell (MA); Lewis Holbrook (NC); Dominick Rezza (TX); Edgar Snapp
(IN); and Gregory Young (SC) from the prohibition of CMV operations by
persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the
exemption is still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: September 3, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-23036 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6294-6299]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82646; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delete
Obsolete Rules

February 7, 2018.
    Pursuant to 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 January 25, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)

thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rules that no longer apply to the
Exchange and make other nonsubstantive changes to the Rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to delete Rules that no longer
apply to the Exchange and to make other nonsubstantive changes to the
Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed rule change on
January 3, 2018 (SR-CBOE-2018-003). On January 25, 2018 the Exchange
withdrew SR-CBOE-2018-003 and refiled as SR-CBOE-2018-009. On
business date January 25, 2018, the Exchange subsequently withdrew
SR-CBOE-108-009 [sic] and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Rules
    The Exchange proposes to delete the following rules and chapters
from its rulebook:
     Rule 2.40--Market-Maker Surcharge for Brokerage. Rule 2.40
operated as a pilot program until March 30, 2000, at which time the
program expired (and the Exchange did not request renewal). The
Exchange does not impose a surcharge on Market-Maker transactions
pursuant to this rule. Any fees and rebates applicable to any Market-
Maker transactions are included in the Cboe Options Fees Schedule.
     Rule 6.2--Trading Rotations. Rule 6.2 states the Exchange
may use the procedures described in current Rules 6.2, 6.2A, or 6.2B to
conduct trading rotations in all options listed on the Exchange.
Currently, the Exchange only uses the procedures set forth in current
Rule 6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2) to conduct trading rotations, and no
longer conducts trading rotations pursuant to current Rule 6.2.
Therefore, this provision no longer applies to trading on the
Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to trading rotations and the
rule proposed to be deleted: Rules 6.6, 6.18, 6.25(b)(1), 6.73(c)
(no longer applicable because trading rotations pursuant to current
Rule 6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2) are fully electronic), 21.11, 22.11,
and 24.13 and Interpretation and Policy .01 (the body of proposed
Rule 24.13 states opening rotations will be conducted in accordance
with Rule 24.13 or proposed Rule 6.2, so there is no need to include
a statement in Rule 24.13, Interpretation and Policy .01 that states
proposed Rule 6.2 describes procedures for a trading rotation, as it
would be redundant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 6.2A--Rapid Opening System (``ROS''). The Exchange
used ROS to open options prior to implementation of the Exchange's
Hybrid Trading System, which includes the Hybrid 3.0 Platform.
Currently, all options listed on the Exchange trade on its Exchange's
Hybrid Trading System. As stated in Rule 6.2A, ROS does not apply to
series trading on the Hybrid Trading System, which open on the Cboe
Options Hybrid Opening System (``HOSS'') (pursuant to current Rule 6.2B
(proposed Rule 6.2)). Therefore, Rule 6.2A no longer applies to any
options listed for trading on the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to ROS and the rule proposed to
be deleted: Rules 1.1(fff) and (ggg), 6.2, 6.6, 6.18, 6.25(b)(1),
8.60(c)(11) and Interpretation and Policy .02, 22.11, and 24.13.
Because the proposed rule change deletes both Rules 6.2 and 6.2A,
the proposed rule change also renumbers Rule 6.2B to be Rule 6.2,
and makes corresponding changes throughout the Rules, including
Rules 6.1A, 6.3A, 6.12, 6.12A, 6.35 [sic] (b)(v)(B)(V), 8.15, 8.85,
and 17.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rules 6.8--RAES Operations and 6.8B--Automatic ORS Order
Execution Against Booked Orders. The Exchange's Retail Automatic
Execution System (``RAES'') was an automated execution system feature
of the Exchange's Order Routing System (``ORS'') operated by the
Exchange and that provided automated order execution and reporting
services for options. RAES and ORS are no longer used, as all options
trading on the Exchange currently occurs on the Hybrid Trading System,
which includes Exchange's Order Handling System (``OHS''). Therefore,
RAES and ORS no longer apply to any options listed for trading on the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to RAES and ORS, change
references from ORS to OHS, and the rules proposed to be deleted:
Rules 1.1(fff) and (ggg), 6.3, Interpretation and Policy .05, 6.6(b)
and (e) and Interpretation and Policy .01, 6.7(b) (the Hybrid System
includes OHS and the book), 6.8C (which the proposed rule change
renumbers as 6.8), 6.13(a) and (c), 6.18, 8.7(b)(iii) and
Interpretations and Policies .07 (which is being deleted in its
entirety, as described below) .11(a) (the Exchange deleted the
paragraph letter for current paragraph (b), as it will be the only
paragraph in that Interpretation and Policy, as well as the
introduction to that paragraph regarding its applicability to
classes on the Hybrid System, because all classes are on the Hybrid
System), 8.13, 8.16, 8.51(c)(1)(a)(iii), 8.60(c)(7) (the proposed
rule change renumbers provisions (8) through (10) as (7) through
(9)) and Interpretation and Policy .02, 8.85(a)(ix) (current
paragraph (a)(ix) no longer applies, as there are no current
Exchange sponsored automated programs that require a market
participant's participation, and the proposed rule change renumbers
subparagraphs (x) and (xi) as (ix) and x), and deletes from current
subparagraph (x) (proposed subparagraph (xi) the introduction to
that paragraph regarding its applicability to classes on the Hybrid
System, because all classes are on the Hybrid System), 23.7, 24.15,
24.17, 24.21(j)(1), and 24B.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 6.10--LOU System Operations. The Large Order Utility
(``LOU'') System was a facility of the Exchange that provided order
routing, handling, and execution for eligible options orders routed
electronically to the Exchange. The LOU System is no longer used, as
all options trading on the Exchange trade on the Hybrid Trading System.
Therefore, the LOU System no longer applies to any options listed for
trading on the Exchange.
     Rule 6.13B--Penny Price Improvement. Pursuant to Rule
6.13B, the Exchange may designate one or more options trading on the
Hybrid Trading System in a Penny Price Improvement Program, which
allows Trading Permit Holders to provide price improvement beyond the
Exchange's disseminated quote for classes not already quoted in penny
increments and for which the simple auction liaison system is not in
effect. The Exchange currently has not designated, and has no intention
to designate, any options for participation in this program. Therefore,
this program no longer applies to any options listed for trading on the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to the Penny Price Improvement
Program and the rules proposed to be deleted: Rules 1.1(fff) and
(ggg), 6.45, Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02, Rule 6.47,
Interpretation and Policy .02, and Rule 6.74, Interpretation and
Policy .09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 6.54(a)--Accommodation Liquidation (Cabinet Trades)
for Classes Not Trading on the Cboe Options Hybrid System. Rule 6.54
describes cabinet trading permitted on the Exchange.

Paragraph (a) describes cabinet trading for classes not trading on the
Hybrid System, while paragraph (b) describes cabinet trading for
classes trading on the Hybrid System. All options trading on the
Exchange currently trade on the Hybrid Trading System, and thus Rule
6.54(a) no longer applies to any options listed for trading on the
Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed rule change makes a corresponding change to
current paragraph (b), eliminates paragraph lettering for paragraph
(b) (as that will be the only paragraph in the rule), and reletters
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) as (a) and (b), consistent with paragraph
lettering throughout the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapter VII--Order Book Officials. Order Book Officials
were Exchange employees responsible for maintaining the book with
respect to classes assigned to them, effecting proper executions of
orders placed with them, displaying bids and offers, and monitoring the
market for classes assigned to them. The Exchange currently has no
employees designated as, and does not intend to designate any employees
as, Order Book Officials, as Order Book Official functions are
generally obsolete now that most trading occurs electronically.
    The proposed rule change deletes Rules 7.1 through 7.3, 7.4 except
for subparagraph (a)(1) (which is being moved to Rule 6.11, with some
modifications described below), 7.5, 7.7 through 7.10, and Chapter VII,
Section B, as they relate solely to responsibilities of Order Book
Officials.
    Rule 7.4(a)(1) states public customer orders in Hybrid and Hybrid
3.0 classes are eligible for entry into the electronic book, and the
Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis other orders that are
eligible for entry into the electronic book. Currently, after a class
is open for trading (see current Rule 6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2) for a
description of orders the System accepts prior to opening), the System
accepts for entry into the Book (1) quotes of all Market-Makers and
orders of any origin code in Hybrid classes and (2) quotes of Lead
Market-Makers (``LMMs'') and orders of priority customers in Hybrid 3.0
classes, while the Exchange continues to have flexibility to permit
orders of other origin codes be eligible for book entry. The Exchange
proposes to codify this current book eligibility (which is consistent
with the Exchange's authority in current Rule 7.4(a)(1)) in Rule 6.11.
The proposed rule change also deletes the provision in current Rule
7.4(a)(1) that states Trading Permit Holders submitting orders or
quotes for entry in to the book must do so electronically and in the
format announced by the Exchange. It is redundant to state orders and
quotes for entry in the electronic book must be submitted
electronically, and Rule 6.53A describes the types of order formats
Trading Permit Holders must use.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to change cross-references to Rule 7.4 to Rule 6.11:
Rules 6.13(b)(i)(A)(2) and (iii), 23.3(b), and 24.11A (the proposed
rule change also deletes the Interpretations and Policies section of
this rule, as there are currently none).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.5, Interpretation and Policy .03 states every Floor Broker
who represents a Market-Maker with an order in any options class must,
by public outcry at the post, indicate the identity of such Market-
Maker at the request of any Trading Permit Holder or Order Book
Official. The proposed rule change moves this provision (with the
reference to Order Book Official deleted) to Rule 6.73, which relates
to responsibilities of Floor Brokers.
    Rule 7.6 regarding the requirement for PAR Official to report
unusual activity is proposed to move to Rule 6.12B(b)(v).\12\ The
proposed rule change moves currently applicable provisions in Rule 7.12
(regarding PAR Officials) to Rule 6.12B (with some nonsubstantive
changes).\13\ PAR Officials are Exchange employees or independent
contractors whom the Exchange may designate as being responsible for
operating a PAR workstation and effecting proper executions of orders
placed with them. PAR Officials no longer maintain the book with
respect to assigned classes, as the electronic book manages electronic
orders and quotes. The proposed rule change deletes the provision in
current Rule 7.12(b)(i) regarding the definition of customer limit
orders, as customer orders are now defined in Rule 1.1(www) and (yyy)
(which are proposed to be relettered as (yyy) and (zzz), as described
below). The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 7.12(b)(i)(C),
which applies to the Intermarket Options Linkage Plan that no longer
exists.\14\ Pursuant to the current linkage plan, including the
definition of an intermarket sweep order (``ISOs'') in Rule 6.53, ISOs
may only be handled electronically (they may only be entered as
immediate-or-cancel or for book entry if they do not execute), and thus
would never be routed to a PAR workstation under the Rules. Therefore,
PAR Officials no longer have responsibilities with respect to routed
orders under the current linkage plan. The proposed rule change moves
Rule 7.12(b)(i)(E), which relates to orders received during a trading
rotation pursuant to current Rule 6.2 or HOSS pursuant to current Rule
6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2), to proposed Rule 6.12B(b)(i)(D). The proposed
rule change changes the term immediately to promptly, as under current
Rule 7.12 and proposed Rule 6.12(b), the term immediately means as soon
as practicable but within 30 seconds. However, proposed Rule
6.12B(b)(i)(D) exempts these orders from being displayed within 30
seconds, so the term immediate did not seem appropriate. The term
promptly still requires action as soon as practicable, but may be
longer than 30 seconds. The proposed rule change moves current Rule
7.12(b)(ii), (iv), and (v) to proposed Rule 6.12B(b)(ii), (iii), and
(iv), respectively, and moves current Rule 7.12(c) and (d) to proposed
Rule 6.12B(c) and (d), respectively. The proposed rule change deletes
Rule

7.12(b)(iii), as PAR Officials no longer maintain the book (as
described above) and do not have the ability to remove orders from the
book. The proposed rule change replaces the term ``senior Trading
Operations official'' with ``senior Help Desk personnel'' in current
Rule 7.12(b)(iv) (proposed Rule 6.12(b)(iii)), which term is used
throughout the rules. The proposed rule change deletes Rule 7.12,
Interpretation and Policy .01, as it relates to the Exchange's
responsibility to appoint PAR Officials to trading stations prior to
March 24, 2006. The Exchange currently has PAR Officials appointed to
all trading stations on the trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to Order Book Officials and the
rules proposed to be deleted: Rules 6.3, Interpretations and
Policies .01 and .02, including the related footnote (these
interpretations also delete references to post directors, which are
no longer used at the Exchange, and only relate to prior
circumstances under which Post Directors or Order Book Officials
would suspend trading; those functions no longer exist on the
Exchange, and the Exchange currently only halts trading in
accordance with the remaining provisions of Rule 6.3 and other rules
related to trading halts), 6.6(b) and (e) (which also deletes
references to post directors, which are no longer used at the
Exchange), 6.12A, 6.20(a) and Interpretations and Policies .02
(currently, there are only four PAR Officials on the trading floor,
who all float to all trading crowds as necessary and are thus no
longer assigned to classes) and .04(ii), 6.43(a), 6.54,
Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02 (the proposed rule change
replaces references to Order Book Officials to PAR Officials,
consistent with Interpretation and Policy .02, which indicates PAR
Officials may perform the functions of Order Book Officials for
purposes of that rule), 6.73, Interpretation and Policy .01 (which
only relates to comparing execution prices to those in displayed by
an Order Book Official (pursuant to Rules 6.45(b) and 6.73, Floor
Brokers must use due diligence to execute orders at the best price
and provide first priority based on price); additionally, bids and
offers are made in response to requests from Floor Brokers that
represent orders in open outcry (see Rule 6.4(b) [sic] and Rule 6.73
contains other provisions that require a Floor Broker to make sure
all persons in the crowd are aware of requests for quotes and use
due diligence when handling and executing orders, making
Interpretation and Policy .01 redundant and unnecessary), 8.7(c)
(the Exchange notes Market-Makers not permitted to enter a trading
station in a floor brokerage capacity, as set forth in Rule 8.8) and
Interpretation and Policy .09 (changes cross-reference to Rule 7.5
to Rule 8.7(d)(iv), which describes current Market-Maker
obligations, including the obligation of Market-Maker to provide a
quote upon Exchange request), and 24.13 and Interpretation and
Policy .03 (which the proposed rule change renumbers to .02).
    \13\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to change cross-references to Rule 7.12 to Rule
6.12B: Rules 6.12A, 6.18(d)(i), and 6.20(a).
    \14\ Chapter VI, Section E describes Exchange responsibilities
pursuant to the current linkage plan, the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Autoquote. Autoquote was an Exchange electronic quotation
system that automatically monitored and updated market quotes using a
mathematical formula measuring certain characteristics of the option
and underlying interest. Rules related to LMMs and DPMs require them to
provide continuous electronic quotes in appointed classes using
Autoquote or a proprietary automated quotation updating system.
Currently, all Market-Makers that submit electronic quotes use a
proprietary system, and Autoquote is no longer used. The proposed rule
change deletes Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .07, which describes
Autoquote, as well as the requirement of LMMs and DPMs to provide
electronic quotes, which requirement is included in Rules 8.15 and
8.85, respectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed rule change also deletes references to
Autoquote in Rules 6.43(b), 8.15(c), 8.51(c)(1)(a)(iii), 8.60
Interpretation and Policy .02. Rules 8.7, Interpretation and Policy
.07, 8.15(c), and 8.85(a)(x) provide components of a formula used
for automated quoting by Market-Makers using proprietary automated
quoting systems will be disclosed unless the Exchange exempts them
from disclosing this information. For competitive reasons, the
Exchange exempts all Market-Makers from disclosing this information,
so the proposed rule change deletes those provisions, as it does not
intend to require Market-Makers from disclosing proprietary
information going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     S&P 100 Modified Opening Rotation. Rule 24.13,
Interpretation and Policy .02 provides a modified opening rotation that
the Exchange may use for S&P 100 options, but the rule also provides
the Exchange with the authority to open this class using HOSS pursuant
to current Rule 6.2B (proposed Rule 6.2). The Exchange currently uses
HOSS to open S&P 100 options, and does not intend to use the modified
opening in the future. Therefore, this provision no longer applies to
the opening of S&P 100 options.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The proposed rule change also renumbers current
Interpretation and Policy .03 to .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8.7(c)--Market-Maker Entry into Trading Station in
Unappointed Class other than As Floor Broker. Rule 8.7(c) states
whenever a Market-Maker enters the trading station for a class of
options contracts in a class in which it is not appointed, in other
than a floor brokerage capacity, the Market-Maker must fulfill
obligations established in Rule 8.7(b) and, for the rest of the trading
day, as well as undertake certain additional obligations. This rule
text essentially requires a Market-Maker to act like a Market-Maker
when it enters a trading station in the capacity of a Market-Maker in
an unappointed class. However, pursuant to Rule 8.3, on the trading
floor, Market-Makers have an appointment to trade in all hybrid
classes, so if it goes to any trading station on the floor as a Market-
Maker, it has an appointment for the classes at that station and is
subject to Market-maker obligations. That provision, in conjunction
with the restriction on acting as a Market-Maker and Floor Broker on
the same day, make the provision in Rule 8.7(c) unnecessary and
duplicative. Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes this
provision.
     Market-Maker Exemption from Rule 8.7(b)(iv) Obligations.
Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .13 provided Market-Makers with a
temporary exemption from requirements set forth in Rule 8.7(d)(iv) on a
pilot basis until February 17, 2007. That pilot has expired, and the
Exchange did not renew it. Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes
Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .03, as it no longer applies to
trading on the Exchange.
     Chapter XXIVA--Flexible Exchange Options (``FLEX
Options''). When the Exchange began offering FLEX Options for trading,
FLEX Options traded pursuant to Rule XXIVA on the trading floor. The
Exchange then developed the FLEX Hybrid Trading System on which FLEX
Options could trade both on the trading floor and electronically.
Chapter XXIVB describes FLEX Options trading on this system, and
provides the Exchange with ability to permit FLEX trading pursuant to
Chapter XXIVA or XXIVB. The open outcry rules in Chapter XXIVA are
substantially similar to those in Chapter XXIVB. The Exchange has
determined all FLEX trading must occur on the FLEX Hybrid Trading
System pursuant to Chapter XXIVB. Therefore, Chapter XXIVA no longer
applies to the trading of any FLEX Options.\17\ The proposed rule
change renumbers Chapter XXIVB and the rules in that chapter to Chapter
XXIVA, and updates cross-references throughout the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The proposed rule change also deletes references to Chapter
XXIVA in the following rules: Rules 3.2(b), 5.9, 6.1A(c), 6.24,
Interpretation and Policy .05, 6.49A(c)(6), Introduction to Chapter
XX, 20.12, Introduction to Chapter XXII, 22.16, Introduction to
current Chapter XXIVB, 28.17, 29.18, and Introduction to Chapter
XXIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapter XXVI--Market Baskets. Chapter XXVI describes rules
applicable to market basket contracts, which are contracts obligating
the seller to sell and the purchaser to purchase a designated number of
shares of each of the stocks comprising the index on which the market
basket is based. The Exchange currently does not list, and does not
intend to list in the future, market basket contracts for trading.
Therefore, Chapter XXVI no longer applies to any options trading on the
Exchange.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The proposed rule change also deletes references to market
baskets and the rules proposed to be deleted in: Rules 8.8,
Interpretation and Policy .02 and 24B.10 (which is proposed to be
renumbered as 24A.10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapter XXVII--Buy-Write Option Unitary Derivatives
(``BOUNDS''). Chapter XXVIII describes rules applicable to BOUNDS,
which are securities issued, or subject to issuance, by the Options
Clearing Corporation pursuant to its rules, which gives holders and
writers thereof such rights and obligations as may be provided in its
rules. The Exchange currently does not list, and does not intend to
list in the future, BOUNDS for trading. Therefore, Chapter XXVII no
longer applies to any options trading on the Exchange.
     Chapter XXXI--Approval of Securities for Original Listing.
Chapter XXXI describes rules pursuant to which the Exchange may list
equity securities for listing on the Exchange. The Exchange currently
does not list any equity securities on the Exchange. Therefore, Chapter
XXXI currently applies to no securities listed on the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Options may be listed for trading on the Exchange pursuant
to Chapter V and XXIV. The proposed rule change leaves a placeholder
in Chapters XXX and XXXI for rules related to listing and trading of
equity securities. The Exchange would file a proposed rule change to
adopt new rules if it determines to list and trade equity securities
in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 6(b)(10) of
the Act \20\ requires the rules of each national securities exchange to
prohibit any member that is not the beneficial owner of a security
registered under Section 12 of the Act \21\ from granting a proxy to
vote the security in connection with certain shareholder votes, unless
the beneficial owner of the security has instructed the member to vote
the proxy in accordance with the voting instructions of the beneficial
owner. The

shareholder votes covered by Section 957 include any vote with respect
to (1) the election of a member of the board of directors of an issuer
(except for a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member
of the board of directors of any investment company registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Investment Company Act''),
(2) executive compensation, or (3) any other significant matter, as
determined by the Commission, by rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 31.82 through 31.88 currently include provisions that cover
these proxy voting requirements with respect to Trading Permit Holders.
However, because this proposed rule change deletes Chapter XXXI, the
proposed rule change adds Rule 4.25 to retain the provisions required
by Section 957. Proposed Rule 4.25 is substantially similar to rules of
other options exchanges.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., C2 Supplemental Rules to C2 Chapter 4 and Nasdaq
ISE Rule 421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapters XL through XLIX--Screen-Based Trading. Chapters
XL through XLIX describe trading on the Exchange's screen-based trading
system. The screen-based trading system is no longer used, as all
options trading on the Exchange trade on the Hybrid Trading System.
Therefore, the screen-based trading rules no longer apply to any
options listed for trading on the Exchange.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to screen-based trading and the
rules proposed to be deleted: Rules 1.1(fff) and (ggg), 3.2(b), and
3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chapters L through LIV--CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'').
Chapters L through LIV describe trading on CBSX, which is the
Exchange's facility for trading stocks, warrants, IPRs, IPSs, and Trust
Issued Receipts (non-options securities). CBSX ceased market operations
on April 30, 2014. Therefore, the CBSX rules no longer apply to any
trading on the Exchange.\25\ The Exchange would file a proposed rule
change to adopt new rules if it determines to list and trade non-
options securities in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
following rules to delete references to CBSX and the rules proposed
to be deleted: Rules 3.1A, 3.2(b), 3.3, and 6.20A, Interpretation
and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Nonsubstantive Changes
    In addition to nonsubstantive changes described above, the proposed
rule change makes the following nonsubstantive changes:
     The proposed rule change moves Interpretation and Policy
.01 to the definition of Professional in Rule 1.1(ggg) to
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 1.1, so that all Interpretations
and Policies to Rule 1.1 are in the same place.
     Currently, there are two paragraphs erroneously lettered
as Rule 1.1(mmm) and (ppp). The proposed rule change corrects this
lettering and updates the paragraph lettering to reflect these
corrections.
     The proposed rule change makes updates throughout the
rules to conform paragraph lettering and numbering to other rules, as
well as to reflect deleted rule provisions.
     Rule 6.2, Interpretation and Policy .01(b) and (c)
erroneously refer to LMMs as LLMs. The proposed rule change corrects
[sic] those erroneous references.
    The proposed rule change amends Rule 6.43(b) to indicate it only
applies to Hybrid 3.0 classes, which is consistent with the current
rule text and current trading practices.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\26\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \27\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \28\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, by deleting rules that no longer apply to Cboe
Options trading (which rules have generally not been applicable in
years), and making other nonsubstantive changes to better organize and
more consistently number and letter rules, the rules will more clearly
identify currently applicable rules, which the Exchange believes
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will eliminate
confusion regarding which rules apply to current trading, which
ultimately protects investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change has no impact on current trading on Cboe Options.
    The proposed rule change regarding proxy voting is substantially
similar to C2 Supplemental Rules to C2 Chapter 4 and Nasdaq ISE Rule
421 and consistent with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

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

    Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
deletes rules that no longer apply to Cboe Options trading and makes
other nonsubstantive changes, and thus has no impact on current trading
on Cboe Options. Therefore, the proposed rule change has no impact on
competition. The proposed rule change eliminates confusion with respect
to rules applicable to current trading on Cboe Options.
    The proposed rule change regarding proxy voting is substantially
similar to C2 Supplemental Rules to C2 Chapter 4 and Nasdaq ISE Rule
421 and consistent with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \32\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. According to the Exchange,
the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it eliminates confusion as to the rules
that currently apply to trading on Cboe Options. The Commission
believes that deleting obsolete rules will add clarity and transparency
to the Exchange's rules. Therefore, the Commission finds that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission waives
the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \33\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-010. 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-CBOE-2018-010 and should be submitted on
or before March 6, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02857 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P