[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3091-3095]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00685]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87953; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule Related To Expiring Fee Waivers and Incentive
Programs

January 13, 2020.
    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 January 2, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to
various fee waivers and incentive programs that are set to expire
December 31, 2019. The amendments include proposals to make some
waivers permanent as well as proposals to extend or remove others. The
Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fees Schedule on
January 2, 2020.
    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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to
various fee waivers and incentive programs that are set to expire
December 31, 2019. The amendments include proposals to make some
waivers permanent as well as proposals to extend or remove others. The
Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fees Schedule on
January 2, 2020.
Sector Indexes Facilitation Fee
    First, the Exchange proposes to permanently waive fees for
facilitation orders in Sector Index options,\3\ thereby continuing to
assess a fee of $0.00 for all qualifying orders. Currently, Footnote 11
of the Fees Schedule provides that for facilitation orders for Sector
Index options executed in open outcry the Exchange will assess no
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees through
December 31, 2019. By way of background, ``facilitation orders'' in
open outcry are defined as any order in which a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (``F'' capacity code) or Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate
(``L'' capacity code) is contra to any other capacity code order,
provided the same executing broker and clearing firm are on both sides
of the transaction.\4\ In adopting a waiver for facilitation fees in
Sector Index options,\5\ the Exchange recognized that Clearing Trading
Permit Holders can be an important source of liquidity when they
facilitate their own customers' trading activity. As such, the Exchange
believes that continuing to encourage the important role Clearing
Trading

Permit Holders play with respect to facilitating their own customers'
trading activity will continue to add transparency to the markets and
promote price discovery to the benefit of all market participants.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to permanently waive fees for
facilitation of orders in open outcry in Sector Index options permanent
[sic], and thereby would continue to assess $0.00 for such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 47.
    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 11.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85167 (February 20,
2019), 84 FR 6039 (February 25, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sector Indexes License Surcharge
    The Exchange next proposes to permanently waive the Index License
Surcharge of $0.10 per contract, thereby continuing to assess an Index
License Surcharge fee of $0.00 for transactions in Sector Index
options. In order to promote and encourage trading of the Sector Index
options, listed in 2018, the Exchange adopted a waiver of the Index
License Surcharge for non-customer Sector Index option transactions.\6\
The waiver has since been extended and is currently set to expire on
December 31, 2019.\7\ Because the volume in these products has remained
on the lower side since their listing, the Exchange wishes to
continuously assess a surcharge of $0.00 for transactions in Sector
Index options, instead of continuing to extend each waiver upon
expiration, to indefinitely incentivize the trading of Sector Index
options and continue to grow the products. The $0.00 surcharge would
continue to apply to all non-customer transactions, as it does with the
current waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82854 (March 12,
2018), 83 FR 11803 (March 16, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-012). The Exchange
notes that this surcharge does not apply to customer orders.
    \7\ See supra note 6 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIX License Index Surcharge
    The Exchange next proposes to permanently waive the Index License
Surcharge of $0.10 per contract for Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary (``Firm'') (capacity codes ``F'' or ``L'') VIX orders that
have a premium of $0.10 or lower and have series with an expiration of
seven (7) calendar days or less. The Exchange adopted the waiver in
2016 \8\ to reduce transaction costs on expiring, low-priced VIX
options, which the Exchange believed would encourage Firms to seek to
close and/or roll over such positions close to expiration at low
premium levels, including facilitating customers to do so, in order to
free up capital and encourage additional trading.\9\ Since its
adoption, the Exchange has continued to extend the waiver, which is
currently set to expire on December 31, 2019,\10\ at which time the
Exchange had stated that it would evaluate whether the waiver has in
fact prompted Firms to close and roll over these positions close to
expiration as intended. The Exchange has determined that the waiver has
incentivized, and continues to incentivize, Firms to close and/or roll
over such positions close to expiration at low premium levels, as well
as facilitate customers to do the same. The Exchange believes that if
such a waiver was not in place, and Firms were charged standard costs
to roll or exit positions close to expiration at low premium levels,
the closing transactions and positions currently and consistently taken
by Firms would not occur. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
permanently waive this fee, and thereby continue to assess an Index
License Surcharge of $0.00 per contract for Firm VIX orders that have a
premium of $0.10 or lower and have series with an expiration of seven
(7) calendar days or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76923 (January 15,
2016), 81 FR 3841 (January 22, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-002).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76923 (January 15,
2016), 81 FR 3841 (January 22, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-002).
    \10\ See supra note 6 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM Transaction Fees
    In order to promote and encourage trading in certain FTSE Russell
Index products (i.e., Russell 1000 Growth Index (``RLG''), Russell 1000
Value Index (``RLV''), Russell 1000 Index (``RUI''), and FTSE 100 Index
(``UKXM'')), the Exchange adopted waivers (in 2015 and then in 2016)
\11\ of all transaction fees (including the Floor Brokerage Fee, Index
License Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee) for each of these products
for all market participants.\12\ Since its adoption, the Exchange has
continued to extend the waiver, which is currently set to expire on
December 31, 2019.\13\ Like with the Sector Indexes License Surcharge
above, because the volume in these products is consistently low, the
Exchange now proposes to continuously assess a fee of $0.00 for
transactions in such products, as opposed to extending the waiver every
six months. As such, the Exchange proposes to permanently waive
transaction fees for orders in RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM options in order
to continue to encourage growth and trading of these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76288 (October 28,
2015), 80 FR 67805 (November 3, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-096) (adopting
fee waivers for RUI, RLV, and RLG transactions); 77547 (April 6,
2016), 81 FR 21611 (April 12, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-021) (adopting
waivers for UKXM and FXTM transactions).
    \12\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 40.
    \13\ See supra note 6 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MXEA and MXEF LMM Incentive Program
    The Exchange also proposes to extend the financial program for Lead
Market-Makers (``LMMs'') appointed in MSCI EAFE Index (``MXEA'')
options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (``MXEF'') options.\14\
Currently, if the appointed LMM in MXEA and MXEF provides continuous
electronic quotes during Regular Trading Hours that meet or exceed the
above heightened quoting standards in at least 90% of the MXEA and MXEF
series 80% of the time in a given month, the LMM will receive a payment
for that month in the amount of $20,000 per class, per month. The Fees
Schedule currently provides that this program will be in place through
December 31, 2019. In order to continue to encourage LMM(s) in MXEA and
MXEF to continue serving as LMMs and provide significant liquidity in
these options, which, in turn, would continue to provide greater
trading opportunities for all market participants, the Exchange
proposes to renew this program through June 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, ``MSCI LMM Incentive
Program'' Table; and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83585 (July
2, 2018), 83 FR 31825 (July 9, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-050); see also
supra note 6 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UKXM DPM Incentive Program
    The Exchange currently has a compensation plan in place for the
Designated Primary Market-Maker(s) (``DPM(s)'') appointed in UKXM to
offset its DPM costs, which is set to expire on December 31, 2019.\15\
Specifically, the DPM appointed for an entire month in UKXM will
receive a payment of $5,000 per month through December 31, 2019.\16\
The Exchange notes that DPMs incur costs when receiving an appointment,
and this compensation plan is designed to offset those costs in order
to encourage DPMs to continue to serve as a DPM in this product. The
Exchange notes that there is low volume in UKXM and, as such, the
Exchange proposes to extend this plan through December 31, 2020 to
continue to incentivize DPMs to uphold its DPM commitments in this
product, thereby continuing to provide the necessary liquidity and, as
a result, greater trading opportunities for all market participants in
this option class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77547 (April 6,
2016), 81 FR 21611 (April 12, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-021).
    \16\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 43.

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

MXEF Customer Transactions Fee Waiver
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to remove the current waiver of the
$0.25 fee assessed for Customer (``C'') transactions in MXEF upon its
expiration on December 31, 2019.\17\ The Exchange adopted this waiver
in October 2019 in order to incentivize an increase of Customer volume
in MXEF on the Exchange as a result of a precipitous decrease in MXEF
Customer volume in the months leading up to October 2019. The Exchange
has determined that there has since been a revived increase in Customer
executions in MXEF, therefore, the Exchange proposes to let this waiver
expire upon December 31, 2019 and remove it from the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 87249 (October 8,
2019), 84 FR 55203 (October 15, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\18\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\20\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sector Indexes Facilitation Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to permanently waive the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fee for
facilitation orders in open outcry in Sector Index options is
reasonable because these orders will continue to not be charged any
fee. As stated above, the Exchange believes this waiver is, and will
continue to be, a reasonable means to incentivize the facilitation of
customer orders by Clearing Trading Permit Holders, an important source
of liquidity. This, in turn, adds to market transparency and promotes
price discovery to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
a similar fee of no charge already applies to Firm manual orders in
Sector Index options as well as in other products.\21\ Moreover, The
Exchange believes that continuing to assess no charge for Firm
facilitation orders in open outcry in Sector Index options is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because Clearing Trading Permit Holders
have obligations which normally do not apply to other market
participants (e.g., must have higher capital requirements, clear trades
for other market participants, and must be members of OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Cboe Fees Schedule, ``Rate Table--Underlying Symbol
List A'', which currently assesses a fee of $0.00 for Firm orders in
RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sector Indexes License Surcharge
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to permanently waive the
Index License Surcharge for Sector Indexes because the Sector Indexes
have continued to experience lower volume and are still relatively new
products and the Exchange wishes to continuously encourage and promote
trading of these products. Therefore, the Exchange believes that
consistently and more definitively assessing no surcharge for non-
customer orders, as opposed to repeatedly extending the fee waiver, is
a reasonable means to continue to encourage market participants to
trade these products. The Exchange also believes that the proposal to
permanently waive the Index License Surcharge for non-customer
transactions in Sector Index options is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all market participants would equally continue
to be assessed a surcharge of $0.00 for transactions in Sector Indexes
(the Exchange notes that customer orders are not subject to this
surcharge).
VIX Index License Surcharge
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to waive the Index License
Surcharge for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary VIX orders
that have a premium of $0.10 or lower and have series with an
expiration of seven calendar days or less, because the Exchange
believes the current waiver has incentivized Firms to roll and close
over positions close to expiration at low premium levels. Therefore,
the proposal to remove the waiver and continue to assess a fee of $0.00
for such transactions would serve to consistently encourage Firms to
transact and/or take positions close to expiration at low premium
levels. Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to make
permanent the waiver of the $0.10 per contract surcharge by
consistently assessing no surcharge because Firms would be less likely
to engage in these transactions, as opposed to other VIX transactions,
due to the associated transaction costs. The Exchange believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the $0.00
surcharge to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders because
they contribute capital to facilitate the execution of VIX customer
orders with a premium of $0.10 or lower and series with an expiration
of seven calendar days or less. Additionally, as noted above, Clearing
Trading Permit Holders have obligations, which normally do not apply to
other market participants (e.g., must have higher capital requirements,
clear trades for other market participants, must be members of OCC).
RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to permanently waive all
transaction fees for RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM transactions, including
the Floor Brokerage fee, the License Index Surcharge and CFLEX
Surcharge Fee, and consistently assess a fee of $0.00, because the
waiver of the respective fees currently in place and has continuously
been extended since its adoption. Thus, permanently waiving these
transaction fees would better serve to consistently promote and
encourage trading of these products which have experienced relatively
low volume since their listing. The proposal to make this waiver
permanent is not unfairly discriminatory and is equitable because it
would result in an equal assessment of no charge for any market
participant's orders in RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM.
MXEA and MXEF LLM Incentive Program
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend the MXEA and MXEF
LMM Incentive Program because the Exchange wants to ensure it continues
incentivizing the LMM(s) in these products to provide liquid and active
markets in these products to encourage its growth. The Exchange notes
that without the proposed financial

incentive, there may not be sufficient incentive for TPHs to undertake
an obligation to quote at heightened levels, which could result in
lower levels of liquidity to the detriment of all market participants.
The Exchange believes the waiver is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only offer this financial incentive to MXEA and MXEF
LMM(s), because it benefits all market participants trading in these
options to encourage the LMM(s) to satisfy the heightened quoting
standard, in turn, increasing liquidity and providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange notes that LMMs
provide a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for
market participants to trade products, including MXEA and MXEF, which
can lead to increased volume, thereby providing for a robust market. In
addition, the Exchange notes that all Market-Maker types (i.e. LMMs,
DPMs, as well as Primary Market-Makers (``PMMs'') take on a number of
obligations, including quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not have. Such Market-Makers have added market-making
and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other
market participants. For example, Market-Makers have obligations to
maintain continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that
are inconsistent with a course of dealing. Also, if a MSCI LMM does not
satisfy the heightened quoting standard, then it simply will not
receive the offered per class payment for that month.
UKXM DPM Incentive Program
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the UKXM DPM
incentive program is reasonable because it will continue to incentivize
the DPM(s) to serve as a DPM(s) in this product. Continued DPM
commitments in UKXM would continue to provide the necessary liquidity
in this product, resulting in tighter spreads and increased trading
opportunities for all market participants in this option class. The
Exchange believes that the extension of this incentive program is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it will apply
equally to all DPMs appointed in UKXM. Like LMMs (as indicated above),
DPMs play a crucial role in providing liquid and active markets in
options classes in order to encourage growth and provide trading
opportunities to the benefit all market participants, and uphold
certain obligations and adhere to certain regulatory requirements that
other market participants do not have.
MXEF Customer Transactions Fee Waiver
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to remove the
waiver of transaction fees for Customer orders in MXEF as it will
expire on December 31, 2019. As the waiver was implemented in order to
incentivize Customer MXEF executions following a noticeable decrease in
Customer volume in MXEF, and the Exchange has determined that Customer
executions in MXEF have increased since the application of the waiver,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to let the waiver expire as
scheduled and remove it from the Fees Schedule. The proposed removal of
the waiver is not unfairly discriminatory and is equitable because the
waiver will no longer be applicable, as scheduled, to any orders in
MXEF. Instead, the standard fee of $0.25 that applied to such
transactions prior to the adoption of the waiver, will again apply
equally to all Customer orders in MXEF.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    First, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does impose
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly,
the proposed changes either make permanent or extend existing fee
waivers and incentive programs that already apply to all similarly
situated TPHs in a uniform manner. Also, the proposed change to remove
an existing fee waiver does not impose any burden on intramarket
competition, as the same fees that applied prior to the implementation
of the waiver will continue to apply after its removal. To the extent
certain market participants receive a benefit that others do not, these
different market participants have different obligations and
circumstances. For example, DPMs and LMMs play a crucial role in
providing active and liquid markets in their appointed products,
thereby providing a robust market which benefits all market
participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and regulatory
requirements that other participants do not have. Additionally,
Clearing Trading Permit Holders can be an important source of liquidity
when they facilitate their own customers' trading activity and also
have other obligations, which normally do not apply to other market
participants (e.g., must have higher capital requirements, clear trades
for other market participants, must be members of OCC). The Exchange
also notes that consistently and definitively assessing no charge (in
lieu of continuously extending the relevant waivers) and that the
proposed extensions of the incentive programs are designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all
market participants on the Exchange by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads and encourages all TPHs to send
orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, the
proposed changes only affect trading on Cboe Options, as the waivers
and incentive programs apply to transactions in products exclusively
listed on Cboe Options. Next, the Exchange notes it operates in a
highly competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have
numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and director
their order flow, including 15 options exchanges, as well as off-
exchange venues. Based on publicly available information, no single
options exchange has more than 22% of the market share of executed
volume of options trades.\22\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
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.'' \23\ 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 stated 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' . . . ''.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to extend the above-mentioned fee waivers and
incentive programs impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (December 17, 2019), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \24\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-2020-001 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-2020-001. 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-2020-001 and should be submitted on
or before February 7, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00685 Filed 1-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 26786]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on June 13, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, C
and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Shanika Craig<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Food
and Drug Administration, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On June 13, 2013, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the possible reclassification of influenza
detection devices, currently regulated as class I. The committee's
discussion will involve making recommendations regarding regulatory
classification to either confirm class I or reclassify these devices
into class II with special controls. The committee will address issues
such as device performance and public health impact to determine
whether special controls are needed to ensure the safety and
effectiveness of these tests through their total product life cycle.
The proposed special controls will be discussed to support the possible
reclassification.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
4, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before May 30, 2013. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by May 31, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Committee Management Staff, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 301-
796-5966, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2013-10891 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                    	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY                                                         AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date:  March 23, 2011

SUBJECT:	2,4-D and Dicamba: Petition for the Establishment of Tolerances on Teff; Request for Registration of Latigo (EPA Reg No. 5905-564) on Teff.

PC Codes:  030001 and 029801 DP Barcode:   D383628 and D381877 Decision No.: 440785 and 439344 Registration No.: 5905-564 Petition No.: 0F7796 and 0E7779 Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration Risk Assessment Type: Human Health Risk Assessment Case No.: NA TXR No.: NA CAS No.: 94-75-7 and 1918-00-9 MRID No.: NA 40 CFR: §180.142 and §180.227

FROM:	Christine Olinger, Risk Assessor 		Risk Assessment Branch VII 		Health Effects Division (7509P) 		 THROUGH:	Michael Metzger, Branch Chief 		Risk Assessment Branch VII 		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Laura Nollen 		RIMUERB, Registration Division (7505P)

This document provides the Health Effects Division (HED) human health assessment for the proposed establishment of tolerances and registration of new uses of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba on teff.

Introduction

The Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4) has requested registration of Latigo (EPA Reg No. 5905-564; Helena Chemical Company) for use on teff.  Latigo is an emulsifiable concentrate formulation containing 24.62% 2,4-D acid and 18.28% dicamba acid.  It is currently registered for control of a wide spectrum of annual, biennial, and perennial broadleaf weeds and brush in pastures, rangeland, and grass (hay, silage), wheat, sugarcane, Conservation Reserve Program land, general farmstead areas, and other non-food agricultural sites.

The petitioner, IR-4, on behalf of the states of Oregon, Oklahoma, Montana and Idaho, also requests the establishment of tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisinic acid in or on the food commodities shown below.                Commodity Proposed Tolerance (ppm) Teff, forage 90.0  Teff, grain 6.0 Teff, straw 30.0 Teff, hay 40.0

Addtionally, IR-4, requests the establishment of tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide, plant regulator, and fungicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined as the acid, in or on the food commodities as shown below.

Commodity Proposed Tolerance (ppm) Teff, bran 4.0 Teff, forage 25.0  Teff, grain 2.0 Teff, straw 50.0

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is an alkylchlorophenoxy herbicide used to control a variety of broadleaf weeds.  It may also occasionally be used as a plant growth regulator or fungicide.  Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) is a selective benzoic acid herbicide registered for the control of certain broadleaf weeds and woody plants before their emergence.  It is an auxin agonist that is readily translocated symplastically and apoplastically with accumulation in meristemic regions of the plant.  Sensitive plants exhibit rapid uncontrolled growth characterized by twisting and curling of stems and petioles, stem elongation and swelling and leaf cupping.

Proposed Use

Latigo may be applied at 0.75-1.25 pints/A (0.22-0.37 lbs 2,4-D acid/A; 0.17-0.28 lbs. dicamba acid/A).  Ground (10-20 gallons spray/A) and aerial (3-10 gallons of water/A) applications may be made.  Applications may be made to teff grass seed crops, teff grown for hay and silage (pastures, rangeland and grass), and teff grown as a small grain to produce gluten-free flour for human consumption.  The pre-harvest interval (PHI) is 14 days, although treated grasses being harvested for dry hay or silage should not be harvested within 37 days of treatment.  There is no waiting period between treatment and grazing of forage for non-lactating animals, although meat animals being finished for slaughter should not graze fields within 30 days of slaughter.  Lactating animals should not be grazed within 7 days of treatment.  The Restricted Entry Interval (REI) is 48 hours.

Toxicity Data and Endpoint Selection

      2,4-D In the most recent comprehensive risk assessment for 2,4-D (HED's Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Revised to Reflect Public Comments, Timothy Dole, 5/12/05), the toxicity database was considered complete except for the submission of a developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) and a repeat 2-generation reproduction study.  Additionally, 40 CFR Part 158 was recently (12/2007) modified to include the requirement for a neurotoxocity screening battery and an immunotoxicity study.  The toxicity database for 2,4-D includes acceptable acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies; therefore, the requirements for the neurotoxicity screening battery have been met.  To address the other deficiencies, the registrant submitted an F1-extended one generation toxicity study in rats (Linda Taylor, Ph.D., 12/10/2010; MRID No. 47972101).  This study has been reviewed and found acceptable, and fulfills the requirements for all three outstanding toxicity studies.  The toxicity studies submitted since the last comprehensive risk assessment will not result in any changes in risk assessment points of departure.  However, since the database is now complete, the need for the 10X FQPA database uncertainty factor must be reevaluated.  Since aggregate risks to 2,4-D are acceptable even with the factor retained, 2,4-D endpoints will not be reevaluated as part of this action.

      Dicamba In the most recent comprehensive risk assessment for dicamba ("Dicamba: Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Sweet Corn", Mary Clock-Rust, 3/6/08), the toxicity database was considered complete.  However, 40 CFR Part 158 was recently (12/2007) modified to include the requirement for a neurotoxocity screening battery and an immunotoxicity study.  The toxicity database for dicamba includes acceptable acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies; therefore, the requirements for the neurotoxicity screening battery have been met.  An immunotoxicity has recently been submitted and is in review (MRID No. 48081601; D378374).  A screening level review of this study indicates that no effects, including immunotoxic effects, were observed at the highest dose tested of approximately 307 mg/kgbw/day.  This value is higher than the doses currently used for risk assessment; therefore, risk assessment endpoints will not change.  The toxicity database is now complete, and a 10X FQPA database uncertainty factor is not required.  A complete review of this immunotoxicity study is pending.

Residue Data

No teff residue data were submitted with this petition.  Rather, the petitioner proposes that residues in teff will be similar to those in wheat and other cereal grains.  The uses described for wheat (grown for grain, or wheat and other small grains grown for hay and silage) on the currently registered Latigo label are the same as the proposed use directions for teff.  Therefore, since cereal grains including teff are morphologically and taxonomically similar, HED concludes that residues in teff agricultural commodities (grain, forage, silage, hay) will be similar to those in wheat and other cereal grains.

Aggregate and Occupational Risks

Teff is not included in the CSFII (Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals).  However, because it is used to make flour in a manner similar to wheat and other cereal grains, it will likely substitute in the diet for cereal grain foods which will contain similar residues of 2,4-D and dicamba; therefore, significant increase in dietary exposure to residues of either compound from consumption of teff-containing foods, as a result of Latigo use on teff, will not occur.  Furthermore, residues of 2,4-D and dicamba in teff livestock feeds will be similar to those in other forages, hays, and silages for which Latigo is currently registered.  Therefore, there would be no increase in the livestock dietary burden should teff be substituted in the livestock diet for other hays and silages; residues in meat, milk, poultry and eggs will remain the same.

Since the use rate for teff is consistent with that for wheat and lower than for some other crops, increased exposures to individuals through drinking water is not expected.

No changes to residential exposures will occur as a result of the subject uses.

HED concludes that the aggregate exposures and risks will not increase for either 2,4-D or dicamba as a result of the proposed use; aggregate risks will be the same as those estimated in previous HED risk assessments (For dicamba see "Dicamba: Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Sweet Corn", Mary Clock-Rust, 3/6/08; for 2,4-D see 2,4-D. "HED's Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Revised to Reflect Public Comments", Timothy Dole, 5/12/05).

Since the use pattern for Latigo on teff is identical to those for wheat and other cereal grains, occupational risks will be the same as those for cereal grains, and are not of concern

Adequacy of the Proposed Tolerances

Proposed tolerances for residues of 2,4-D and dicamba on teff commodities are identical in most cases to the tolerances for these chemicals on wheat commodities (see Table below).  Since the use patterns on wheat and teff are the same, and since cereal grains including teff are morphologically and taxonomically similar, HED agrees that these tolerance levels are appropriate.  In one instance, dicamba on teff grain, the proposed tolerance is consistent with the barley grain tolerance rather than the wheat grain tolerance.  Since residue data are being translated generally from other cereal grains to teff, HED agrees that use of the higher tolerance for barley is acceptable to assure that the tolerance level isn't exceeded.

Commodity                                      2,4-D                                     Dicamba

Proposed Teff Tolerance (ppm) Current Wheat Tolerance (ppm) Proposed Teff Tolerance (ppm) Current Wheat Tolerance (ppm) Teff, bran 4.0 4.0 NA NA Teff, forage 25.0  25 90.0  90.0 Teff, grain 2.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 (barley rather than wheat grain; wheat grain = 2.0 ppm) Teff, straw 50.0 50 30.0 30.0 Teff, hay NA NA 40.0 40.0

Conclusions

The toxicity databases for 2,4-D and dicamba are considered complete.  Adequate residue data are available to support the proposed use on teff, translated from other cereal grains (wheat and barley) which have identical use patterns.  There will be no increase in aggregate exposure or risk from food, drinking water, or residential sources as a result of the proposed use; aggregate risks are acceptable for both 2,4-D and dicamba based on the most recent comprehensive risk assessments for each compound.  Occupational exposures and risks are not of concern.  Therefore, HED has no objections to granting the proposed registration of Latigo on Teff, or establishing tolerances as described below.

The Petitioner should revise the proposed tolerances expressions for 2,4-D and dicamba, respectively, as follows:

      Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide, plant regulator, and fungicide 2,4-D, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below.  Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring residues of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined as the acid.          Commodity Proposed Tolerance (ppm) Teff, bran 4.0 Teff, forage 25.0  Teff, grain 2.0 Teff, straw 50.0              Tolerances are established for the residues of the herbicide dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below.  Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring residues of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisinic acid in or on the food commodities shown.        Commodity Proposed Tolerance (ppm) Teff, forage 90.0  Teff, grain 6.0 Teff, straw 30.0 Teff, hay 40.0