[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12052-12054]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05448]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82863; File No. SR-LCH SA-2018-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to End of
Day Price Contribution

March 13, 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 March 8, 2018,\3\ Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by LCH SA. LCH SA has filed the proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \5\
thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ This notice supersedes and replaces the notice of this
proposed rule change previously made public on the Commission's
website on March 5, 2018.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    LCH SA is proposing to amend its CDS Clearing Procedures (the
``Procedures'') in order to implement a new window for end of day price
contribution for CDX North American indices and related USD denominated
single name CDS transactions at New York close of business (the
``Proposed Rule Change'').
    The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit 5.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In connection with the clearing of CDX North American indices and
related USD denominated single name CDS transactions, LCH SA proposes
to modify the end of day price contribution process by changing the
following timelines for a CDS Contractual Currency \6\ in US Dollar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in LCH SA's
Rulebook, available at: https://www.lch.com/resources/rules-and-regulations/sa-rulebooks.

--The daily Price Requirement Files availability for download from
between 14:30 and 15:00 GMT to from 14:30 New York City local time
except when the Price Contribution Day occurs on the Price Contribution
Day immediately preceding 1st January, 4th July or 25th December for
which the files may be available earlier as notified by LCH SA in
advance;
--The daily Market Data submission by Price Contribution Participants
from between 16:00 and 16:35 GMT to between 16:30 and 16:35 New York
City local time, except when the Price Contribution Day occurs on the
Price Contribution Day immediately preceding 1st January, 4th July or
25th December for which the files may be available earlier as notified
by LCH SA in advance;
--The fallback to composite spread/prices from 17:15 GMT to 17:15 New
York City local time;
--The disclosure of the occurrence of a Firm Day to Price Contribution
Participants from promptly after the closure of the submission window
at 16:35 GMT to promptly after the closure of the submission window at
16:35 New York City local time;
--The execution of a CDS Cross Trade by Price Contribution Participants
on a Firm Day from prior to 18:30 GMT to prior to 17:30 New York City
local time;
--The notification of execution of Cross Trades on a Firm Day by a
Price Contribution Participant to LCH SA from before 18:30 GMT to
before 17:30 New York City local time.

    LCH SA is also taking this opportunity to make the following
amendments to Section 5 of the Procedures with respect to the timeline
of the end of day price contribution process for a CDS with a CDS
Contractual Currency in Euro and an Index Swaption:

--The daily Price Requirement Files availability for download from
between 14:30 and 15:00 GMT to from 13:15 GMT, except when the Price
Contribution Day occurs on the Price Contribution Day immediately
preceding 1st January or 25th December for which the files may be
available earlier as notified by LCH SA in advance;
--The daily Market Data submission by Price Contribution Participants
from between 16:00 and 16:35 GMT to between 16:30 and 16:35 GMT, except
when the Price Contribution Day occurs on the Price Contribution Day
immediately preceding 1st January or 25th December for which the files
may be available earlier as notified by LCH SA in advance.

    The main purpose of the Proposed Rule Change is to allow LCH SA to
mark to market USD denominated index and

single names positions with prices contributed at the close rather than
in the middle of the trading session for these instruments such that
both the Initial Margin and Variation Margin to be settled at the
following First Margin Run are reflecting accurately the entirety of
the previous trading session and the associated market moves.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-
22.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \9\ of the Act requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions and
to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible. As noted above, the Proposed Rule Change will allow LCH SA
to reflect more accurately in its Initial Margin and Variation Margin
calculations the entirety of the market moves for USD denominated index
and single names observed in the previous trading session, and thus
further strengthen the safeguarding of securities and funds under
control of LCH SA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change satisfies the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), (e)(1), (e)(4), and
(e)(6).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), (e)(1), (e)(4), and
(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires a clearing agency acting as a central
counterparty to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures
to participants under normal market conditions and to use risk-based
models and parameters to set margin requirements.\11\ Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3) \12\ requires each clearing agency acting as a central
counterparty for security-based swaps to maintain sufficient financial
resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant
families to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible
market conditions (the ``cover two standard''). Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
requires a covered clearing agency to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing and settlement processes by
maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure
to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence,\13\ and
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) requires a covered clearing agency that provides
central counterparty services to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that meets
certain minimum requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, LCH SA proposes to amend the timeline of the
end of price contribution process for USD denominated index and single
name positions to reflect the market moves observed during the entirety
of the previous trading session in the calculation of the Initial
Margin and Variation Margin to be settled at the following First Margin
Run. This implies that the margin requirements set by LCH SA and use of
such margin requirements limit LCH SA's credit exposures to
participants in clearing USD denominated index and single name CDS
transactions under normal market conditions, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2).\15\ LCH SA also believes that its current risk-based margin
methodology, by relying on prices contributed at the close of the
trading session, takes into account, and generates margin levels
commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of USD
denominated index and single name CDS transactions at the product and
portfolio levels, appropriate to the relevant market it serves,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).\16\ In addition, LCH SA
believes that the margin calculation under the current CDSClear margin
framework and based on prices for USD denominated index and single name
positions contributed at the close of the trading session would also
sufficiently account for the 5-day liquidation period for house account
portfolio and 7-day liquidation period for client portfolio and
therefore, is reasonably designed to cover LCH SA's potential future
exposure to participants in the interval between the last margin
collection and the close out of positions following a participant
default, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires a clearing agency acting as a
central counterparty for security-based swaps to establish policies and
procedures reasonably designed to maintain the cover two standard.\18\
Similarly, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires a covered clearing agency
that provides central counterparty services for security-based swaps to
maintain financial resources additional to margin to enable it to cover
a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not
limited to, meeting the cover two standard.\19\ LCH SA believes that
its current Default Fund methodology based on prices for USD
denominated index and single name positions provided at the close of
the trading session will also appropriately incorporate the risk of
clearing USD denominated index and single name CDS transactions, as
together with the existing CDSClear margin framework, will be
reasonably designed to ensure that LCH SA maintains sufficient
financial resources to meet the cover two standard, in accordance with
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4)(ii).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1), which requires each covered clearing agency's
policies and procedures be reasonably designed to provide for a well-
founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each
aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\21\ As
described above, the proposed rule change would make a clear
distinction on the timelines associated to the end of day price
contribution process for Euro and USD denominated positions. LCH SA
believes that this change would provide for a clear and transparent
legal basis for CDSClear clearing members' requirement to provide
accurate prices on all of their open positions, consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(1).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, LCH SA believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivatives
agreements, contracts and transactions, and assuring the safeguarding
of securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing
agency or for which it is responsible, in accordance with 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition.

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency do not impose any burden on

competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule Change will apply equally to all CDSClear members
and clients and does not adversely affect their ability to engage in
cleared transactions or to access clearing services offered by LCH SA
CDSClear.
    Therefore, LCH SA does not believe that the Proposed Rule Change
would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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
thereunder.\26\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s.
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-LCH SA-2018-002 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-LCH SA-2018-002. 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 LCH SA and on LCH SA's website
at http://www.lch.com/asset-classes/cdsclear.
    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-LCH SA-2018-002 and should
be submitted on or before April 9, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2018-05448 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12759-12761]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05328]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77299; File No. SR-EDGA-2016-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
its Rules as Well as Certain Corporate Documents of the Exchange To
Reflect a Legal Name Change by BATS Global Markets, Inc. and the Legal
Names of Certain Subsidiaries

March 4, 2016.
    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 February 26, 2016, EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGA Exchange,
Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one being
concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing a rule change to amend its rules as well
as certain corporate documents of the Exchange to reflect a legal name
change by the Exchange's ultimate parent entity, BATS Global Markets,
Inc. (the ``Parent'') to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and the legal names
of certain of the Parent's subsidiaries. As a result of this change,
the Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to change its name from
EDGA Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. throughout its rules
and corporate documents.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange, on behalf of its Parent, recently filed to change the
Parent's legal name from ``BATS Global Markets, Inc.'' to ``Bats Global
Markets, Inc.'' \5\ For the purposes of consistency, certain of the
Parent's subsidiaries have also undertaken to change their legal names.
As a result, the Exchange also proposes to change its name from EDGA
Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. throughout its rules and
corporate documents (collectively, with the other legal name changes
for Parent and certain of its subsidiaries, the ``name changes'').\6\
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend its: (i) Rulebook; (ii) fee
schedule issued pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee
Schedule''); (iii) Restated Certificate of Incorporation
(``Certificate''); and (iv) Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of the
Exchange (``Bylaws'') (collectively, the ``Operative Documents'') to
reflect the name change and to replace all references to ``BATS'' with
``Bats''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77146 (February 16,
2016) (SR-EDGA-2016-01).
    \6\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee [sic] change
on February 19, 2016 (SR-EDGA-2016-04). On February 26, 2016, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace all references to BATS with Bats
throughout the Exchange's Rulebook and Fee Schedule. The Exchange
understands that its affiliated Exchanges also intend to file similar
proposed rule changes with the Commission to amend their exchange
names.\7\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend the following rules
to reflect the name changes, including the expected filings by its
affiliates to amend their names: Rule 1.5 (Definitions), Rule 2.3
(Member Eligibility), Rule 2.10 (Affiliation Between Exchange and a
Member), Rule 2.11 (BATS Trading, Inc. as Outbound Router), Rule 2.12
(BATS Trading, Inc. as Inbound Router), Rule 11.11 (Routing to Away
Trading Centers), Rule 13.4 (Usage of Data Feeds), Rule 13.8 (EDGA Book
Feeds), Rule 13.9 (BATS Connect), Rule 14.2 (Investment Company Units),
and Rule 14.8 (Portfolio Depository Receipts). Throughout these rules,
the Exchange proposes the following changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange's affiliates are EDGX Exchange, Inc., BATS
Exchange, Inc. and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. The Exchange understands
that proposed rule changes are to be filed by each of its affiliates
to amend their names as follows: EDGX Exchange, Inc. would be
changed to Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BATS Exchange, Inc. would be
amended to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. would
be amended to Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     All references to ``EDGA EXCHANGE'' and ``EDGA EXCHANGE,
Inc.'' are proposed to be changed to ``Bats EDGA Exchange'' and ``Bats
EDGA Exchange, Inc.'', respectively;
     All references to ``EDGA'' in Rule 13.8 are proposed to be
changed to ``the Exchange'';
     All references to ``BATS'' are proposed to be changed to
``Bats'';
     All references to the Parent are proposed to be changed to
``Bats Global Markets, Inc.'' (which includes changes from ``BATS'' to
``Bats'' as well as the correction of pre-existing errors in such
references);
     All references to ``BATS Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed to
be changed to ``Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.'';
     All references to ``BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed
to be changed to ``Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.'';
     All references to ``EDGX Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed to
be changed to ``Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.''
    In addition to these changes, the Exchange proposes to modify its
Fee Schedule to reflect the name change of the Exchange to Bats EDGA
Exchange \8\ and to change all references to ``BATS'' to instead refer
to ``Bats''. The Exchange also proposes on its Fee Schedule to refer to
its affiliates, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. and Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (as
each is proposed to be re-named), simply as ``BZX'' and ``BYX'',
respectively. The Exchange believes that this is more consistent with
other references on the Fee Schedule, such as the general references to
``EDGX'', which refer to the Exchange's affiliate, Bats EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (as proposed to be re-named).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that the Exchange will continue to be
referred to as ``EDGA'' in certain areas of the Fee Schedule. These
areas of the Fee Schedule are: (i) The Fee Codes and Associated Fees
table; (ii) footnote 1 under Membership Fees; (iii) Bats Connect
pricing table; and (iv) Unicast Access--Order Entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Article First of the
Certificate to change the name of the Exchange to Bats EDGA Exchange,
Inc. and make conforming changes throughout, including the title of the
Certificate. The Exchange proposes to amend the Bylaws to amend the
title to reflect that the Bylaws will be titled the ``FIFTH AMENDED AND
RESTATED BYLAWS OF BATS EDGA EXCHANGE, INC.'' The Exchange also
proposes to amend Article I, paragraph (f) and Article XI, Section 2 to
reflect the name changes.
    The name change from EDGA Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGA Exchange,
Inc. is a non-substantive change. No changes to the ownership or
structure of the Exchange or BATS Global Markets, Inc. have taken
place.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \11\ in that it is

designed to continue to ensure that the Exchange is so organized and
has the capacity to carry out the purposes of Act and to comply, and
enforce compliance by its members with the provisions of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder, and rules of the Exchange. The
Exchange is proposing amendments to the Operative Documents to
effectuate its name change to Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. and to reflect
the name changes of its affiliates. These changes are limited to
capitalization and ministerial name changes and to reflect similar
proposed rule changes to be submitted to the Commission by the
Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange believes that the changes will
protect investors and the public interest by eliminating confusion that
may exist because of differences between its corporate name and the new
naming conventions of the Parent and its subsidiaries, including the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the rule change proposes ministerial changes related to the
administration, and not the governance or operation, of the Exchange,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because it is concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange, the foregoing proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

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-EDGA-2016-05 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-EDGA-2016-05. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2016-05, and should be
submitted on or before March 31, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05328 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46774-46775]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2019-44]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; University
of Florida Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0504
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2019.
John Linsenmeyer,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0504.
    Petitioner: University of Florida Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Research Program.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  107.3.
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would permit relief from the definitions of part

107 in order to conduct research on the viability of distributed
electric propulsion systems for full scale electric vertical take-off
and landing aircraft control by using a sub-scale unmanned aircraft
system, weighing 195 pounds, to develop the control schemes that can be
used for scaling purposes. Flight operations would take place solely at
a remote designated flight test area on University of Florida property.

[FR Doc. 2019-19136 Filed 9-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32140-32145]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 578

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0059]

Civil Penalties

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

ACTION: Reconsideration of final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks comment on whether and how to amend the civil
penalty rate for violations of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards. NHTSA initially raised the civil penalty rate for CAFE
standard violations for inflation in 2016, but upon further
consideration, NHTSA believes that obtaining additional public input on
how to proceed with CAFE civil penalties in the future will be helpful.
Therefore, NHTSA is issuing this document to seek public comment as it
sua sponte reconsiders its final rule regarding the appropriate
inflationary adjustment for CAFE civil penalties.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received by October 10, 2017. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for more information on
submitting comments.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the
docket number identified in the heading of this document. Note that all
comments received, including any personal information provided, will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. NHTSA will continue to file relevant information
in the Docket as it becomes available.
    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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    NHTSA sets \1\ and enforces \2\ CAFE standards for the United
States, and in doing so, assesses civil penalties against vehicle
manufacturers who fall short of their compliance obligations and are
unable to make up the shortfall with credits.\3\ The amount of the
civil penalty was originally set by statute in 1975, and for most of
the duration of the CAFE program, has been $5.50 per each tenth of a
mile per gallon that a manufacturer's fleet average CAFE level falls
short of its compliance obligation, multiplied by the number of
vehicles in the fleet \4\ that has the shortfall. The basic equation
for calculating a manufacturer's civil penalty amount is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 32902.
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 32911, 32912.
    \3\ Credits may be either earned (for over-compliance by a given
manufacturer's fleet, in a given model year) or purchased (in which
case, another manufacturer earned the credits by over-complying and
chose to sell that surplus). 49 U.S.C. 32903; 49 CFR part 538.
    \4\ A manufacturer may have up to three fleets of vehicles, for
CAFE compliance purposes, in any given model year--a domestic
passenger car fleet, an imported passenger car fleet, and a light
truck fleet. Each fleet belonging to each manufacturer has its own
compliance obligation, with the potential for either over-compliance
or under-compliance. There is no overarching CAFE requirement for a
manufacturer's total production.

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

(penalty rate, in $) x (amount of shortfall, in tenths of an mpg) x (#
of vehicles in manufacturer's non-compliant fleet) = $ due as penalty
for non-compliant fleet.

To date, automakers have paid more than $890 million in penalties
relating to the CAFE standards.\5\ Additionally, since the introduction
of credit trading and transfers in MY 2011, some manufacturers have
turned to acquiring credits from competitors rather than paying civil
penalties for non-compliance, and it is likely that this involves
significant expenditures. In light of the fact that CAFE standards are
set to rise at a significant rate over the next several years, and
since NHTSA's Projected Fuel Economy Performance Report \6\ indicates
that many manufacturers are falling behind the standards for model year
2016 and increasingly so for model year 2017, it is likely that many
manufacturers will face the possibility of paying larger CAFE penalties
over the next several years than at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The highest CAFE penalty paid to date for a shortfall in a
single fleet was $30,257,920, paid by DaimlerChrysler for its
imported passenger car fleet in MY 2006. Since MY 2012, only Jaguar
Land Rover and Volvo have paid civil penalties. See https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/CAFE_PIC_Fines_LIVE.html.
    \6\ Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/CAFE_PIC/MY%202016%20and%202017%20Projected%20Fuel%20Economy%20Performance%20Report%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has long had authority under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, Public Law 94-163, section 508, 89
Stat. 912 (1975), to raise the amount of the penalty for CAFE
shortfalls if it can make certain findings,\7\ as well as the authority
to compromise and remit such penalties under certain circumstances.\8\
If NHTSA were to raise penalties for CAFE shortfalls, the higher amount
would apply to any manufacturer who owed them; the authority to
compromise and remit penalties, however, is limited and on a case-by-
case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 U.S.C. 32912.
    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 32913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both raising penalties and compromising them under EPCA,
NHTSA's burden is considerable. If NHTSA seeks to raise CAFE penalties
under EPCA, NHTSA may only do so if it concludes through rulemaking
that the increase in the penalty both (1) will result in, or
substantially further, substantial energy conservation for automobiles
in model years in which the increased penalty may be imposed, and (2)
will not have a substantial deleterious impact on the economy of the
United States, a State, or a region of the State. A finding of ``no
substantial deleterious impact'' may only be made if NHTSA determines
that it is likely that the increase in the penalty (A) will not cause a
significant increase in unemployment in a State or a region of a State,
(B) adversely affect competition, or (C) cause a significant increase
in automobile imports. Nowhere does EPCA define ``substantial'' or
``significant'' in the context of this provision. The rulemaking
process to raise penalties includes specifically soliciting comments
from the Federal Trade Commission, among others, and requires a public
hearing following a comment period of at least 45 days. NHTSA has never
adjusted the CAFE civil penalty using this EPCA provision.
    If NHTSA seeks to compromise or remit penalties for a given
manufacturer, a rulemaking is not necessary, but the amount of a
penalty may be compromised or remitted only to the extent (1) necessary
to prevent a manufacturer's insolvency or bankruptcy, (2) the
manufacturer shows that the violation was caused by an act of God, a
strike, or a fire, or (3) the Federal Trade Commission certifies that a
reduction in the penalty is necessary to prevent a substantial
lessening of competition. As with raising penalties, NHTSA has never
previously attempted to undertake this process.
    The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NHTSA on October 1,
2015, to conduct rulemaking to raise the amount of the penalty to $10,
the maximum possible under EPCA at that time.\9\ A month later, while
NHTSA was considering that petition, Congress enacted the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation
Adjustment Act),\10\ which applied to all civil penalties administered
by federal agencies, as discussed in the prior Federal Register
documents cited above. OMB guidance directed NHTSA and other federal
agencies to follow a specific formula to adjust its civil penalties,
pursuant to the Act's requirements, including the penalty for CAFE
shortfalls, pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A copy of this petition is available in the rulemaking
docket.
    \10\ Public Law 114-74, Sec. 701.
    \11\ This OMB guidance is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf (last accessed May 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2016, NHTSA published an interim final rule, adopting
inflation adjustments for penalties under its administration, following
the formula in the Act. One of these adjustments included raising the
penalty rate for CAFE non-compliance from $5.50 to $14.\12\ NHTSA also
indicated in that document that the new maximum penalty rate that the
Secretary is permitted to establish for such violations is $25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 81 FR 43524 (July 5, 2016). This interim final rule also
updated the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of all
statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA, and was not limited
solely to penalties administered for CAFE violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the changes to the CAFE provisions promulgated in
the interim final rule, the Auto Alliance and Global Automakers jointly
petitioned NHTSA for reconsideration (the Industry Petition).\13\ The
Industry Petition raised concerns with retroactivity (applying the
penalty increase associated with model years that have already been
completed or for which a company's compliance plan had already been
``set''); which ``base year'' NHTSA should use for calculating the
adjusted penalty rate; and whether an immediate increase in the penalty
rate to $14 would cause a ``negative economic impact.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC also filed a petition
for reconsideration in response to the July 5, 2016 interim final
rule raising the same concerns as those raised in the Industry
Petition. Both petitions can be found in docket listed on this
document accessible via www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Industry Petition, NHTSA issued a final rule
published on December 28, 2016.\14\ NHTSA agreed that raising the
penalty rate for model years already fully complete would be
inappropriate, given how courts generally disfavor the retroactive
application of statutes. NHTSA also agreed that raising the rate for
model years for which product changes were infeasible due to lack of
lead time, did not seem consistent with Congress' intent that the CAFE
program be responsive to consumer demand. NHTSA therefore stated that
it would not apply the inflation-adjusted penalty rate of $14 until
model year 2019, as that seemed to be the first year in which product
changes could be made in response to the higher penalty rate. NHTSA
further stated that its December final rule responded to the CBD
petition for rulemaking. The December 28, 2016 final rule is not yet
effective, and, in a separate document published in this Federal
Register, NHTSA is delaying the effective date of the rule pending
reconsideration to allow for public comment on this issue.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 81 FR 95489 (Dec. 28, 2016).
    \15\ 82 FR 8694 (Jan. 30, 2017); 82 FR 15302 (Mar. 28, 2017); 82
FR 29009 (June 27, 2017).

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

II. NHTSA's Reconsideration of Final Rule and Request for Comment on
How To Adjust CAFE Civil Penalties

    CAFE penalties are straightforward to administer, but determining
the appropriate amount of inflation adjustment is more complicated than
originally understood. As CAFE standard stringency continues to
increase, the nation's increased abundance of fuel resources has
reduced fuel prices and is causing consumers to make purchasing
decisions based on factors other than fuel economy, the potential
effects of higher penalties for shortfalls may be more widely felt. In
fact, NHTSA's data indicates that many automakers are projected to fall
behind the standards for model years 2016 and 2017. Moreover, as
explained earlier, once NHTSA settles on an amount for CAFE penalties,
that becomes the amount applicable to all shortfalls, and NHTSA has no
leeway to compromise or remit penalties for manufacturers who feel that
their compliance circumstances are dire, unless they are actually
facing bankruptcy. The consequences of this decision, therefore, are
considerable and fairly permanent. NHTSA is therefore sua sponte
reconsidering the December 28, 2016 final rule.
    The Inflation Adjustment Act provides an exception to give federal
agencies the ability to adjust the ``catch-up'' amount of a civil
monetary penalty by less than the required amount. In order to make
such an adjustment, the head of the agency must determine through
notice and comment rulemaking that either (1) increasing the penalty by
the otherwise required amount will have a ``negative economic impact,''
or (2) the social costs of increasing the penalty by the otherwise
required amount outweigh the benefits. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget must agree with either conclusion by an agency
before an agency can act upon such a conclusion.\16\ The term
``negative economic impact'' is not defined in the Inflation Adjustment
Act, though OMB's guidance noted that it expected a concurrence that a
penalty increase would have a ``negative economic impact'' to be
``rare.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 701(c), Public Law 114-74.
    \17\ OMB Guidance, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the OMB guidance directed agencies to calculate the
initial ``catch-up adjustment'' based on either the year the penalty
was originally established by Congress, or last adjusted (by Congress
or by the agency), whichever is later.\18\ If NHTSA determined that it
was appropriate to use a different base year than the 1975 base year
used to calculate the adjustment in the interim final rule, that
decision could have a significant impact on the future CAFE penalties
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After further consideration of these issues, and because the July
5, 2016 interim final rule did not provide an opportunity for
interested parties to provide input fully, NHTSA has determined that it
should seek public comment on whether and how NHTSA should consider the
issues raised above in seeking to implement the Inflation Adjustment
Act as it pertains to CAFE penalties.
    Both exceptions to the Inflation Adjustment Act require the agency
to assess the economic effects of increasing the penalty amount.
Relevant, therefore, to both exceptions is information concerning the
costs and benefits of increased penalties. In general, the agency
expects that increasing the level of the CAFE penalty rate will lead to
both increased penalties being paid and increased compliance with CAFE
standards, which would result in greater fuel savings and other
benefits. We request comment on any information related to these costs
and benefits, including:
     What would be the aggregate increased cost of applying a
higher fine rate? To what extent would this be based on increased fines
versus increase compliance?
     What would be the effect on penalty payments of applying a
higher fine rate?
     What would be the effect on the average price of passenger
cars and light trucks sold in the U.S?
     How much additional fuel would be saved by raising the
CAFE penalty rate any amount between $5.50 per tenth of a mile per
gallon and $14 per tenth of a mile per gallon, and based on current
projections of fuel prices, what would be the monetized benefit to
consumers, if any, as compared to additional costs to consumers
associated with higher penalties?
     What would be the environmental impacts of this fuel
savings?
     Are there any other costs or benefits the agency should
consider?
     Do commenters have data suggesting whether societal costs
outweigh societal benefits?
    In acting under the ``negative economic impact'' exception, two
slightly different overarching questions also present themselves:
First, whether the ``impact'' resulting from raising the CAFE penalty
rate leads to a ``negative economic impact,'' and second, whether and
how the EPCA requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32912 for what NHTSA must
consider in raising CAFE penalty rates under that section interact with
NHTSA's obligations under the Inflation Adjustment Act. NHTSA therefore
seeks comment on the following:
     If NHTSA were to consider potential ``negative economic
impacts'' associated with raising the CAFE penalty rate, what impacts,
specifically, should NHTSA evaluate, why are those impacts relevant and
not others, and what magnitude of impacts should be regarded as
constituting ``negative economic impacts''?
     Do commenters have information that could be useful to
NHTSA in evaluating ``negative economic impacts'' that they would be
willing to provide?
     ``Negative economic impact'' also potentially requires the
agency to consider impacts that are similar to those considered in
cost-benefit analysis. For example:
    [cir] If there are increased prices due to increased penalties,
what effect may that have on sales, including transfer of sales from
new vehicles to used vehicles?
    [cir] If any impact on sales exists, would there be any adverse
safety, fuel economy, or environmental impacts if consumers remain in
older vehicles, which are less likely to have advanced safety and
environmental features, or may be less fuel efficient than new model
year vehicles? Would rising prices have a disproportionate impact on
rural and disadvantaged communities, including with respect to safety,
fuel economy, and environmental benefits?
    [cir] If prices are affected by raising the penalties, would this
restrict consumer choice?
    [cir] If the prices of new model year vehicles rise as a result of
higher CAFE penalties, would there be an impact on the price of older
model year vehicles, and what economic impact might there be as a
result?;
    [cir] If increased penalties increase the costs of vehicles, would
that lead to any secondary economic impacts on the nation, on a state
or group of states, or on a region within a state or group of states,
if as a result consumers spend less money on other desired goods and
services?;
    [cir] If penalties rise, could that create disincentives for
automakers to build certain types of vehicles with lower fuel economy,
such as vehicles specially designed to accommodate Americans with
disabilities? And if, as a result of higher CAFE penalties, the prices
of such vehicles rise or the availability of such vehicles falls, what
might be the impact on consumers of such vehicles?

     Do commenters believe that the EPCA considerations for
raising CAFE penalty rates under 49 U.S.C. 32912 are relevant to the
catch-up adjustment required by the Inflation Adjustment Act? Why or
why not?
     Do commenters believe that the EPCA considerations for
``substantial deleterious impact'' are relevant to a determination of
``negative economic impact''? If so, do commenters believe that those
considerations must be accounted for in determining negative economic
impact, or simply that they are informational, and what is the legal
basis for that belief?
     If the EPCA considerations are relevant, how should they
be applied in this instance?
     Do commenters have data suggesting what levels of
``substantial energy conservation,'' as envisioned by EPCA, would
outweigh any ``substantial deleterious impact'' of raising penalties?
Why or why not?
     Assuming the factors under 32912 are relevant, can
commenters provide specific, documented information (including
references to the sources relied on) with regard to the following:
    [cir] Would there be any potential effects on employment
nationally, on specific states or groups of states, or within regions
of a state or groups of states, which could result from raising the
CAFE penalty rate any amount between $5.50 per tenth of a mile per
gallon and $14 per tenth of a mile per gallon?
    [cir] Would rising penalties affect employment on specific sectors
of the economy?
    [cir] Are there any potential effects on competition within the
automotive sector and the market shares of individual automakers that
could result from raising the CAFE penalty rate any amount between
$5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon and $14 per tenth of a mile per
gallon?
    [cir] Are there any potential effects on automobile imports that
could result from raising the CAFE penalty rate any amount between
$5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon and $14 per tenth of a mile per
gallon?
    Finally, regarding whether NHTSA used the appropriate base year to
calculate the adjustment in the interim final rule, should NHTSA
instead use the passage of EISA in 2007 as the ``base year'' for
calculating the catch-up adjustment? Do commenters believe that
Congress, as a whole, ``adjusted'' or re-``established'' the CAFE
penalty amount in EISA within the meaning of the Inflation Adjustment
Act when Congress amended the penalty provision? What is the basis for
commenters' belief? That is, could it be argued that Congress, as a
whole, explicitly considered and rejected a change to the specific
civil penalty dollar amount in the statute ($5.00) and instead ratified
the penalty while at the same time amending the penalty provision to
authorize the use of civil penalty revenue to support NHTSA's CAFE
rulemaking and to support research and development of the advanced
technology vehicles? \19\ Under such an interpretation, Congress may
have re-``established'' the CAFE penalty in 2007, meaning that it could
be used as the base year to apply the inflation adjustment multiplier.
If so, what would the economic consequences of such a change in base
year be?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In a September 16, 2016 letter to NHTSA supplementing their
August 1, 2016 petition for reconsideration of the July 5, 2016
interim final rule adjusting the CAFE penalties, the petitioners
argued that Congress had considered increasing the CAFE penalty and
instead ultimately ratified the existing one. As support for this
argument, the petitioners cited a subcommittee discussion draft of
June 1, 2007, published in the record of a hearing before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce entitled ``Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Draft Concerning Alternative Fuels, Infrastructure and Vehicles,''
June 7, 2007, Serial Number 110-53, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg42440/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg42440.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that NHTSA decides that it should adopt a CAFE civil
penalty level other than $14, how much lead time (in model years)
should NHTSA provide to manufacturers to allow them to adjust their
production to the new penalty level? What is the factual and legal
basis to support such lead time if NHTSA determines to adopt a
different penalty level?

III. CAFE Penalty During Reconsideration

    Since NHTSA is reconsidering its December 28, 2016 final rule,
including whether $14 per tenth of a mile per gallon is the appropriate
inflationary-adjusted penalty level, NHTSA is delaying the effective
date of the final rule pending reconsideration in a separate document
also published in this Federal Register. During reconsideration, the
applicable civil penalty rate is $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon,
which was the civil penalty rate prior to NHTSA's inflationary
adjustment. Since $5.50 is also the penalty rate that applies under the
December 28, 2016 final rule until Model Year 2019, NHTSA expects that
delaying the final rule pending reconsideration will not affect the
actual payment of CAFE penalties that would have otherwise applied
prior to Model Year 2019.
    NHTSA expects that its inflationary adjustment will provide lead
time in advance of assessing a new CAFE penalty level.\20\ As NHTSA
explained in the December 28, 2016 Federal Register document, absent
lead time, increasing the civil penalties for falling short of CAFE
standards would not lead to an increase in fuel economy. Most
manufacturers could not alter their compliance plans in response to the
increase in civil penalties for several model years, and therefore
raising the penalty rate without lead time would seem to impose
retroactive punishment without generating any additional fuel savings.
Neither of these outcomes seems consistent with Congress' intent either
in EPCA or in the Inflation Adjustment Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The appropriate lead time is one of the issues on which
NHTSA is seeking public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Public Participation

    NHTSA requests comment on all aspects of this document. This
section describes how you can participate in this process.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket,
please include the Docket Number NHTSA-2017-0073 in your comments. Your
comments must not be more than 15 pages long.\21\ NHTSA established
this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise
fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your
comments, and there is no limit on the length of the attachments. If
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA
asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.\22\ Please note that pursuant to
the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied on and
used by NHTSA, it must meet the information quality standards set forth
in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA
encourages you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
    \22\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.

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

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, please remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the DATES section above.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's
confidential business information regulation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will NHTSA consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before midnight Eastern
Standard Time on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES.
To the extent practicable, NHTSA will also consider comments received
after that date. If a comment is received too late for us to
practicably consider as part of this action, NHTSA will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for a future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov
and following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You
may also read the materials at the DOT Docket Management Facility by
going to the street address given above under ADDRESSES.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive
Order 13563. This action is limited to seeking comment on an adjustment
of a civil penalty under a statute that NHTSA enforces, and has been
determined not to be ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of
the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rulemaking seeks
comment on the penalty amounts enacted under the IFR and does not
change the number of entities that are subject to civil penalties, the
impacts are anticipated to be non-significant.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5
U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments only affect manufacturers of motor
vehicles. Low-volume manufacturers can petition NHTSA for an alternate
CAFE standard under 49 CFR part 525, which lessens the impacts of this
rulemaking on small businesses by allowing them to avoid liability for
potential penalties under 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2). Small organizations and
governmental jurisdictions will not be significantly affected as the
price of motor vehicles and equipment ought not change as the result of
this rule.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency
consults with State and local governments early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason
is that this rule applies to motor vehicle manufacturers. Thus, the
requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually. Because NHTSA does not believe that this
rule will necessarily have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates
assessment will be prepared.

E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect.
Judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702.
That section does not require that a petition for

reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, NHTSA
states that there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this rulemaking action.

G. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

Jack Danielson,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-14525 Filed 7-7-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67799-67801]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27701]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63206; File No. SR-BX-2010-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Expand
the $0.50 Strike Program

October 28, 2010.
    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 October 27, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The 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 Chapter IV, Section 6 (Series of
Options Contracts Open for Trading) of the Rules of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX''), specifically BOX's $0.50 Strike Price
Program (the ``$0.50 Strike Program'' or ``Program'') \3\ to: (i)
Expand the $0.50 Strike Program for strike prices below $1.00; (ii)
extend the $0.50 Strike Program to strike prices that are $5.50 or
less; (iii) extend the prices of the underlying security to at or below
$5.00; and (iv) extend the number of options classes to those overlying
20 individual stocks. The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.sec.gov, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
also on the

Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60814 (October 13,
2009), 74 FR 53535 (October 19, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-63); and 61811
(March 31, 2010), 75 FR 17802 (April 7, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-25)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness permitting concurrent
listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes in the $0.50 Strike and
$1 Strike Programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 proposed rule change is to modify Chapter IV,
Section 6, Supplementary Material .06 of the BOX Rules to expand the
$0.50 Strike Program in order to provide investors with opportunities
and strategies to minimize losses associated with owning a stock
declining in price.
    The Exchange is proposing to establish strike price intervals of
$0.50, beginning at $0.50 for certain options classes where the strike
price is $5.50 or less and whose underlying security closed at or below
$5.00 in its primary market on the previous trading day and which have
national average daily volume that equals or exceeds 1,000 contracts
per day as determined by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
during the preceding three calendar months. The Exchange also proposes
to limit the listing of $0.50 strike prices to options classes
overlying no more than 20 individual stocks as specifically designated
by BOX.
    Currently, Chapter IV, Section 6, Supplementary Material .06 of the
BOX Rules permits strike price intervals of $0.50 or greater beginning
at $1.00 where the strike price for the class is $3.50 or less, but
only for options classes whose underlying security closed at or below
$3.00 in its primary market on the previous trading day and which have
national average daily volume that equals or exceeds 1,000 contracts
per day as determined by OCC during the preceding three calendar
months. Further, the listing of $0.50 strike prices is limited to
options classes overlying no more than 5 individual stocks as
specifically designated by BOX. BOX is currently restricted from
listing series with $1 intervals within $0.50 of an existing strike
price in the same series, except that strike prices of $2, $3, and $4
shall be permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike price for classes
also selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike Program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Chapter IV, Section 6, Supplementary Material .02(b)
referring to the $1 Strike Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of $0.50 strike options traded on BOX has continued to
increase since the inception of the Program. There are now
approximately 25 options classes in the $0.50 Strike Program and they
are listed, and traded, across all options exchanges including BOX; two
of which are classes chosen by BOX for the $0.50 Strike Program. This
proposed rule change would expand $0.50 strike offerings to market
participants, such as traders and retail investors, and thereby enhance
their ability to tailor investing and hedging strategies and
opportunities in a volatile market place.
    By way of example, suppose an investor wanted to invest in 5,000
shares of Sirius Satellite (``SIRI'') on July 13, 2010. The closing
price for SIRI on that day was $ 0.9678. If the investor wanted to buy
a call option as an alternative to purchasing the shares outright for
about $4,800, the lowest strike price available was the $1 strike, an
out-of-the-money option. However, if a $0.50 strike series had been
available, the investor would have been able to control 5,000 shares by
purchasing 50 exercisable in-the-money $0.50 strike call options. BOX
notes that a 3-month SIRI call option with an implied volatility of 50
has a theoretical value of $0.47,\5\ or $47 per contract. Thus, by
investing in options with a $0.50 strike price, the investor could have
benefited from the same upside potential as the stock purchase, but at
a cost of only $2,350 (50 contracts at $47 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Using a Black Scholes pricing model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, if an investor wanted to hedge a position in SIRI stock
with put options, the lowest available strike price at the time was $1,
an in-the-money option. If a $0.50 strike series had been available,
the investor could have used 50 out-of-the-money puts for a fraction of
the cost of buying 50 put options with a $1 strike price. BOX believes
that investors deserve the opportunity to hedge downside risk in stocks
trading less than $1.00 in the same manner as investors have with
stocks trading greater than $1.00.
    Increasing the threshold for the price of the underlying security
from $3.00 to $5.00 and expanding the number of $0.50 strikes available
for stocks priced under $5.00 further aids investors by offering
opportunities to manage risk and execute a variety of option strategies
to improve returns. For example, today an investor can enhance their
yield by selling an out-of-the-money call. Using an example of an
investor who wants to hedge Citigroup (``C'') which is trading at
$4.24, that investor would be able to choose the $4.50 strike which is
6% out-of-the- money or the $5.00 strike which is 17.92% out-of-the-
money, under this proposal. Today, this investor only has the latter
choice. Beyond that, this investor today may choose the $6.00 strike
which is 41% out-of-the-money and offers significantly less premium.
Pursuant to this proposal, if this investor had a choice to hedge the
position with a $5.50 strike option, the investor would have the
opportunity to sell the option at only 29% out-of-the-money, as
compared to 41%, and would improve her return by gaining more premium,
while also benefiting from 29% of upside return in the underlying
equity.
    By increasing the number of securities underlying options classes
in the Program from 5 individual stocks to 20 individual stocks would
allow BOX to offer investors additional opportunities to use the $0.50
Strike Program. BOX notes that $0.50 strikes have had no material
impact on capacity. Further, BOX has observed the popularity of $0.50
strikes. Expanding the $0.50 Strike Program will allow investors to
better enhance returns and manage risk because they are provided
significantly greater flexibility in trading options that overlie lower
priced stocks. Expanding the Program will also allow investors to
establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet
their investment, trading and risk needs.
    The Exchange also proposes making a corresponding amendment to
Chapter IV, Section 6, Supplementary Material .02(b) of the BOX Rules
to add $5 and $6 to $1 Strike Program language that addresses listing
series with $1 intervals within $0.50 of an existing strike price in
the same series. Currently, and to account for the overlap with the
$0.50 Strike Program, the following series are excluded from this
prohibition: strike prices of $2, $3, and $4. BOX proposes to add $5
and $6 to that list to account for the proposal to expand the $0.50
Strike Program to strike prices of up to $5.50.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove the following sentence:
Additionally, for an option class selected for the $1 Strike Price
Program, BOX may not list $1 Strike Prices on any series having greater
than nine (9)

months until expiration. This sentence should have been removed when
the Exchange expanded the $1 Strike Price Program in a limited fashion
to allow BOX to list new series in $1 intervals up to $5 in long-term
option series in up to 200 option classes on individual stocks.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61041 (November 20,
2009), 74 FR 53535 (November 30, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
for a free and open market and a national market system and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular,
the Exchange believes that amending the current $0.50 Strike Program
will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions in a greater
number of securities. Investors would be provided with an opportunity,
which does not exist today, to minimize losses associated with
declining stock prices. With the increase in actively traded, low-
priced securities, BOX believes that amending the $0.50 Strike Program
to allow a $0.50 strike interval below $1 for strike prices of $5.50 or
less is necessary to provide investors additional opportunity to
minimize and manage risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has 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 significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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 \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and 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
Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\11\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63132 (October 19,
2010), 75 FR 65541 (October 25, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-118) (order
approving expansion of $0.50 Strike Price Program).
    \12\ 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-073 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-073. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-073 and should be
submitted on or before November 24, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27701 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P