[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76623]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4284-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4284-DR), dated October 8, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 8, 2016.

    Brantley, Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jenkins, Long, Pierce,
Tattnall, and Toombs Counties for Public Assistance, including
direct federal assistance.
    Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, McIntosh, and Wayne
for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for
Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Camden, Liberty, and Screven Counties for Public Assistance
[Categories C-G] (already designated for assistance for debris
removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B],
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26579 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51660-51661]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32892; 812-14830]

Reinhart Partners, Inc., et al.

November 1, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act.

Applicants: Reinhart Partners, Inc. (the ``Adviser''), Managed
Portfolio Series (the ``Trust''), and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the
``Distributor'').

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'') that
permits: (a) Actively managed series of certain open-end management
investment companies to issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable in large
aggregations only (``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market
transactions in Shares to occur at the next-determined net asset value
plus or minus a market-determined premium or discount that may vary
during the trading day; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds,
under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of
Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to
deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in
connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e)
certain registered management investment companies and unit investment
trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series
to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to create and redeem Shares
in kind in a master-feeder structure. The Order would incorporate by
reference terms and conditions of a previous order granting the same
relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from time to
time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eaton Vance Management, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 31333 (Nov. 6, 2014) (notice) and 31361 (Dec. 2, 2014) (order).

Filing Date: The application was filed on October 4, 2017 and amended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on October 12, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on November 27, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Reinhart Partners,
Inc., 1500 West Market Street, Suite 100, Mequon, Wisconsin 53092;
Managed Portfolio Series, 615 East Michigan Street, 4th Floor,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; Quasar Distributors, LLC, 777 East
Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Summary of the Application

    1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment
company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized under the laws
of Delaware. Applicants seek relief with respect to Reinhart
Intermediate Bond NextShares (the ``Initial Fund''). The portfolio
positions of each Fund (as defined below) will consist of securities
and other assets selected and managed by its Adviser or Subadviser (as
defined below) to pursue the Fund's investment objective.
    2. The Adviser, a Wisconsin corporation, will be the investment
adviser to the Initial Fund. An Adviser (as defined below) will serve
as investment adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other
Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser may
retain one or more subadvisers (each a ``Subadviser'') to manage the
portfolios of the Funds. Any Subadviser will be registered, or not
subject to registration, under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor is a Delaware limited liability company and a
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds.
Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any distributor
of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser
(included in the term ``Distributor''). Any Distributor will comply
with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. The requested Order would
permit applicants to offer exchange-traded managed funds. Because the
relief requested is the same as the relief granted by the Commission
under the Reference Order and because the Adviser has entered into, or
anticipates entering into, a licensing agreement with Eaton Vance
Management, or an affiliate thereof in order to offer exchange-traded
managed funds,\2\ the Order would incorporate by reference

the terms and conditions of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Eaton Vance Management has obtained patents with respect to
certain aspects of the Funds' method of operation as exchange-traded
managed funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and
to any other existing or future open-end management investment company
or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser or any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser
(any such entity included in the term ``Adviser''); and (b) operates as
an exchange-traded managed fund as described in the Reference Order;
and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the Order and of the
Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference herein (each such
company or series and Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is
consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and
the general purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
    7. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in the Reference
Order: (1) With respect to the relief requested pursuant to section
6(c) of the Act, the relief is appropriate, in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act; (2) with respect to
the relief request pursuant to section 17(b) of the Act, the proposed
transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, are consistent with the policies of
each registered investment company concerned and consistent with the
general purposes of the Act; and (3) with respect to the relief
requested pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act, the relief is
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24138 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47397-47398]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21940]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371; FRL-9969-22--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the August 24, 2017, direct
final rule that approves an Alabama state implementation plan (SIP)
revision related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting regulations. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent
final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published
on August 24, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 82 FR 40072, on August 24,
2017, is withdrawn, effective October 12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sheckler can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40072), EPA
published a direct final rule approving a SIP revision submitted by the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM). EPA took a direct final action to approve the
portions of the May 7, 2012, submission that made changes to ADEM
Administrative Code Rule 335-3-14-.04--``Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in Clean Air Areas [Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting (PSD)].'' In particular, the revision adds a
definition of ``replacement unit'' and provides that a replacement unit
is a type of existing unit under the definition of ``emissions unit,''
consistent with Federal regulations.
    In the direct final rule, EPA explained that the Agency was
publishing the rule without prior proposal because the Agency viewed
the submittal as a non-controversial SIP amendment and anticipated no
adverse comments. Further, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing
a separate document in the proposed rules section of the Federal
Register to serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should an
adverse comment be filed. EPA also noted that the rule would be
effective generally 30 days after the close of the public comment
period, without further notice unless the Agency received adverse
comment by the close of the public comment period. EPA explained that
if the Agency received such comments, then EPA would publish a document
withdrawing the direct final rule and informing the public that the
rule would not take effect. It was also explained that all public
comments received would then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule, and that EPA would not institute a second
comment period on this action.
    EPA received two adverse comments on the aforementioned rule. As a
result of these comments received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final
rule approving the aforementioned changes to the Alabama SIPs. EPA will
address the comments in a separate final action based on the proposed
action also published on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40085). EPA will not
open a second comment period for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.50(c) published on August 24,
2017 (82 FR 40072), which was to become effective October 23, 2017, is
withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2017-21940 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24587-24589]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10985]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85909; File No. SR-EMERALD-2019-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

May 21, 2019.

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on May 8, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX
Emerald'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Section (1)(a)vi to the Fee Schedule
to adopt a stock handling fee for stock-option orders (including stock-
option eQuotes \3\) executed against other stock-option orders in the
complex order book, which the Exchange must route to an outside venue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An eQuote is a quote with a specific time in force that does
not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote or
eQuote. An eQuote can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any time,
or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific
instructions to cancel an existing eQuote. See Exchange Rule
517(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally adopted Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders,
to implement trading on the Exchange in complex orders in an identical
fashion, and with an identical rule, as the Exchange's affiliate, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX).\4\ MIAX Emerald Rules,
in their current form, were filed as Exhibit B to its Form 1 on August
16, 2018. At that time, stock-option orders as described in MIAX Rule
518 were being implemented on MIAX and MIAX Rule 518 was undergoing
revisions to support the implementation and trading of stock-option
orders, therefore the revised MIAX Rule 518 \5\ was not included in
MIAX Emerald's Form 1 filing. In connection with the implementation by
MIAX of stock-option orders, MIAX also adopted a stock handling fee for
stock-option orders (including stock-option eQuotes) executed against
other stock-option orders in the complex order book, which MIAX must
route to an outside venue.\6\ MIAX Emerald recently amended Exchange
Rule 518, Complex Orders, to update its rule text regarding the
handling of stock-option orders, in connection with the upcoming launch
of such orders on the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 518.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83726 (July 27,
2018), 83 FR 37849 (August 2, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-16).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83788 (August 7,
2018), 83 FR 40110 (August 13, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-18).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85345 (March 18,
2019), 84 FR 10848 (March 22, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a stock handling fee of $0.0010 per
share for the stock leg of stock-option orders executed against other
stock-option orders in the complex order book, which are routed to an
outside venue. This stock handling fee to be assessed by the Exchange
will cover all fees charged by the outside venue that prints the trade,
and it is also intended to compensate the Exchange for matching these
stock-option orders against other stock-option orders on the complex
order book. A maximum of $50 per order, per day, per Member, will be
assessed under this fee. The cap is intended to give market
participants assurance that they will not pay more than the capped
amount for the execution of the stock leg of their stock-option orders.
The Exchange believes that by limiting this fee to a maximum of $50 per
order, per day, the Exchange addresses the possibility that a Good `Til
Cancelled (``GTC'') \8\ order could be executed over multiple days. For
example, if such an order was partially-executed on a Monday, and then
the remainder was fully-executed on a Tuesday, the total maximum fee
charged to the market participant would be $100 ($50 per day). In
addition to the Exchange's fee, the Exchange will also pass through to
the Member any fees assessed by the routing broker-dealer utilized by
the Exchange with respect to the execution of the stock leg of any such
order (with such fees to be passed through at cost). For example, the
Exchange anticipates that the routing broker-dealer will bill the
Exchange for Section 31 fees and FINRA Trading Activity Fees with
respect to the execution of the stock leg of any such order. The
Exchange will pass such fees through to the Member, at cost (that is,
without any additional mark-up).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Good `til Cancelled or ``GTC'' Order is an order to buy or
sell which remains in effect until it is either executed, cancelled
or the underlying option expires. See Exchange Rule 516(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed stock-option handling fee is similar to the stock
handling fee charged by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed stock handling fee for
stock-option orders (including stock-option eQuotes) is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed stock
handling fee for stock-option orders is reasonable and equitable as the
proposed fee will cover the costs of developing and maintaining the
systems that allow for the matching and processing of the stock legs of
stock-option orders executed in the complex order book, as well as all
fees charged by the outside venue that prints the trade. The Exchange
also believes it is reasonable and equitable to pass through to the
Member any fees assessed by the routing broker-dealer utilized by the
Exchange with respect to the execution of the stock leg of any such
order (with such fees to be passed through at cost). The Exchange notes
that the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX,\12\ and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'')
have comparable fees for the handling of the stock leg of stock-option
orders. ISE also charges a stock handling fee of $0.0010 per share
which is capped at $50 per order.\13\ The Exchange also believes that
its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ because
it will be uniformly applied to all Members that execute stock-option
orders in the complex order book on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 6.
    \13\ See Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 4,
Complex Order Fees and Rebates, 12; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 74117 (January 22, 2015), 80 FR 4600 (January 28, 2015)
(SR-ISE-2015-03).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX Emerald 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. The proposed fee is similar to
and within the range of fees charged by the Exchange's affiliate,
MIAX,\15\ and the Exchange's competitor, ISE.\16\ The Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and to attract order flow to

the Exchange. For the reasons stated above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 6.
    \16\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2019-21 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-EMERALD-2019-21. 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-EMERALD-2019-21 and should be submitted
on or before June 18, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10985 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11646]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0113]

Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan Including
Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone:
Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River,
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee
Channel on all waters of the Main Branch of the Chicago River between
Columbus Drive Bridge, mile marker 326.5, and Dearborn Street Bridge,
mile marker 326.1. This action is necessary to prevent collisions
between mariners and to facilitate safety during the dying of the
Chicago River.

DATES: The regulations in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 165.930
will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on March 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LT John Ramos, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of
the Safety Zone: Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including
Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River,
Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930.
Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all
waters of the Main Branch of the Chicago River between Columbus Drive
Bridge, mile marker 326.5, and Dearborn Street Bridge, mile marker
326.1. Enforcement will occur from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on March 17,
2018. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this
regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or a designated representative. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-
scene representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR
165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also
provide notice through other means, which will include Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. Additionally, the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime
industry through telephonic notifications, email notifications, or by
direct communication from on scene patrol commanders. If the Captain of
the Port or a designated representative determines that the regulated
area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice
of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
grant general permission to enter the regulated area. The Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative may be
contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 28, 2018.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2018-05390 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 68435-68440]
[DOCID:fr24de09-37]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61183; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-087]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish a
Pilot Program To Modify FLEX Exercise Settlement Values and Minimum
Value Sizes

December 16, 2009.
    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 December 3, 2009, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') 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 CBOE. 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 rules regarding permissible
exercise settlement values and minimum value sizes for Flexible
Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'').\3\ The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/
Legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the filing is to modify the permissible exercise
settlement values and minimum value sizes for FLEX Options. These
options are governed by Exchange Chapters XXIVA and XXIVB.
    Exercise Settlement Values for FLEX Index Options. We are proposing
to amend the permissible exercise settlement values for FLEX Index
Options. Currently under Rules 24A.4 and 24B.4, FLEX Options may expire
on any business day specified as to day, month and year, not to exceed
a maximum term of fifteen years. In addition, the exercise settlement
value for FLEX Index Options can be specified as the index value
determined by reference to the reported level of the index as derived
from the opening or closing prices of the component securities (``a.m.
settlement'' or ``p.m. settlement,'' respectively) or as a specified
average, provided that the average index value must conform to the
averaging parameters established by the Exchange.\4\ However, only a.m.
settlements are permitted if a FLEX Index Option expires on, or within
two business days of, a third-Friday-of-the-month expiration
(``Expiration Friday'').\5\ We are proposing to eliminate this latter
restriction on p.m. and specified average price settlements in FLEX
Index Options on a pilot program basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rules 24A.4(b)(3) and 24B.4(b)(3); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 31920 (February 24, 1993), 58 FR 12280
(March 3, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-17). The Exchange has determined to
limit the averaging parameters to three alternatives: The average of
the opening and closing index values; the average of the intra-day
high and low index values; and the average of the opening, closing,
and intra-day high and low index values. Any changes to the
averaging parameters established by the Exchange would be announced
to the membership via circular.
    \5\ For example, under the current rules, the exercise
settlement value of a FLEX Index Option that expires on the Tuesday
before Expiration Friday could have an a.m., p.m. or specified
average settlement. However, the exercise settlement value of a FLEX
Index Option that expires on the Wednesday before Expiration Friday
could only have an a.m. settlement.
    \6\ No change is necessary or being requested with respect to
FLEX Equity Options. Regardless of the expiration date, FLEX Equity
Options are settled by physical delivery of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would become effective on a pilot program basis for a
period of fourteen months. If the Exchange were to propose an extension
of the program or should the Exchange propose to make the program
permanent, then the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such
amendments to the program. The Exchange notes that any positions
established under the pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of
the pilot. For example, a position in a PM-settled FLEX Index Option
series that expires on Expiration Friday in January 2015 could be
established during the 14-month pilot. If the pilot program were not
extended, then the position could continue to exist. However, the
Exchange notes that any further trading in the series would be
restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a
closing transaction.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange intends to address this point in a circular to
members should the Exchange receive approval of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the pilot program, the Exchange would also submit a
pilot program report to the Commission at least two months prior to the
expiration date of the program (the ``annual report''). As described
below, the annual report would contain an analysis of volume, open
interest and trading patterns. In addition, for series that exceed
certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report would
provide analysis of index price volatility and share trading activity.
The annual report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential
basis.
    Analysis of Volume and Open Interest. For each broad-based FLEX
Index class overlying an Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index
series, the annual report would contain the following volume and open
interest data:
    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all Expiration Friday, PM-settled
FLEX Index series trades;
    (2) monthly volume for Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index
series trades aggregated by expiration date;
    (3) monthly volume for individual Expiration Friday, PM-settled
FLEX Index series;
    (4) month-end open interest aggregated for all Expiration Friday,
PM-settled FLEX Index series;
    (5) month-end open interest for Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX
Index series aggregated by expiration date;
    (6) month-end open interest for individual Expiration Friday, PM-
settled FLEX Index series; and
    (7) ratios of monthly aggregate volume and month-end open interest
for Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index and all series of that
class (including the Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index series).
    In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the
Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1)
through (7) above periodically as required by the Commission while the
pilot is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a
confidential basis.
    For each broad-based FLEX Index class overlying an Expiration
Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index option, the annual report would also
contain the information noted in Items (1) through (7) above for
Expiration Friday, AM-settled FLEX Index series. In addition, for each
broad-based Non-FLEX Index class overlying the same index as an
Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index option, the annual report
would also contain the information noted in Items (1) through (7) above
for Expiration Friday Non-FLEX Index series. This data on Expiration
Friday, AM-settled FLEX Index series and Expiration Friday Non-FLEX
Index series would cover the period of the

annual report as well as a pre-pilot period to be determined by the
Exchange and the Commission.
    Analysis of FLEX Trading Patterns. The annual report would contain
the following analysis of FLEX trading patterns:
    (1) A time series analysis of open interest in Expiration Friday,
PM-settled FLEX Index series; and
    (2) an analysis of the distribution of Expiration Friday, PM-
settled FLEX Index series trade sizes and of the number of trades that
occur in each Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX Index series.
    Analysis of Index Price Volatility and Share Trading Activity. For
each broad-based index class overlying an Expiration Friday, PM-settled
FLEX Index that has open interest in Expiration Friday, PM-settled FLEX
Index series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual report
would contain the following analysis related to index price changes and
underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays:
    (1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on
a given Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control
sample. The data would include a calculation of percentage price
changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the
respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as
percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market
volatility, as measured by the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), would be
provided; and
    (2) a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component
securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be
attributable to expiring in-the-money Expiration Friday, PM-settled
FLEX Index series. The data would include a comparison of the
calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average
daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.
    The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time
intervals, method for randomly selecting the component securities, and
sample periods would be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
    Minimum Value Size Requirements for All FLEX Options. Second, we
are proposing to eliminate the minimum value size requirements for FLEX
Options. Currently under Rules 24A.4 and 24B.4, the minimum value size
requirements are as follows:
     For opening transactions in any FLEX series in which there
is no open interest at the time a FLEX Request for Quotes (``RFQ'') or
FLEX Order, as applicable, is submitted is (i) for FLEX Equity Options,
the lesser of 250 contracts or the number of contracts overlying $1
million in the underlying securities; and (ii) for FLEX Index Options,
$10 million Underlying Equivalent Value. For a pilot period ending
February 28, 2010, the ``250 contracts'' component above has been
reduced to ``150 contracts.''
     For a transaction in any currently-opened FLEX series
resulting from an RFQ or from trading against the electronic book
(other than FLEX Quotes responsive to a FLEX Request for Quotes and
FLEX Orders submitted to rest in the electronic book) is (i) for FLEX
Equity Options, the lesser of 100 contracts or the number of contracts
overlying $1 million in the underlying securities in the case of
opening transactions, and 25 contracts in the case of closing
transactions; and (ii) for FLEX Index Options, $1 million Underlying
Equivalent Value in the case of both opening and closing transactions;
or (iii) in either case the remaining underlying size or Underlying
Equivalent Value on a closing transaction, whichever is less.
     The minimum value size for FLEX Quotes responsive to an
RFQ and FLEX Orders (undecremented size) submitted to rest in the
electronic book is 25 contracts in the case of FLEX Equity Options, and
$1 million Underlying Equivalent Value in the case of FLEX Index
Options, or in either case the remaining underlying size or Underlying
Equivalent Value on a closing transaction, whichever is less. In
addition, with respect to FLEX Index Appointed Market-Makers, FLEX
Quotes and FLEX Orders (undecremented size) must be for at least $10
million Underlying Equivalent Value or the dollar amount indicated in
the Request for Quote (if applicable), whichever is less.
    We are proposing to eliminate these minimum value size requirements
on a fourteen month pilot program basis. If the Exchange were to
propose an extension or an expansion of the minimum value size pilot
program, or should the Exchange propose to make the program permanent,
the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such
amendments to the program, a pilot program report that would provide an
analysis of the program covering the period during which the program
was in effect. This minimum value size report would include: (i) Data
and analysis on the open interest and trading volume in (a) FLEX Equity
Options for which series were opened with a minimum opening size of 0
to 249 contracts and less than $1 million in underlying value; (b) FLEX
Index Options for which series were opened with a minimum opening size
of less than $10 million in underlying equivalent value; and (ii)
analysis on the types of investors that initiated opening FLEX Equity
and Index Options transactions (i.e., institutional, high net worth, or
retail). The report would be submitted to the Commission at least two
months prior to the expiration date of the pilot program and would be
provided on a confidential basis.
    The Exchange notes that any positions established under this pilot
would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, a
10-contract FLEX Equity Option opening position that overlies less than
$1 million in the underlying security and expires in January 2015 could
be established during the 14-month pilot. If the pilot program were not
extended, then the position could continue to exist and any further
trading in the series would be subject to the minimum value size
requirements for continued trading in that series.
    Discussion. CBOE believes that expanding the exercise settlement
values for FLEX Index Options and eliminating the minimum value size
requirements for all FLEX Options on are [sic] important and necessary
to the Exchange's efforts to create a product and market that provides
members and investors interested in FLEX-type options with an improved
but comparable alternative to the over-the-counter (``OTC'') market in
customized options, which can take on contract characteristics similar
to FLEX Options but are not subject to the same restrictions. By making
these changes, market participants would now have greater flexibility
in determining whether to execute their customized options in an
exchange environment or in the OTC market. CBOE believes market
participants benefit from being able to trade these customized options
in an exchange environment in several ways, including, but not limited
to the following: (1) Enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
positions; (2) increased market transparency; and (3) heightened
contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options. The
Exchange also believes the proposed changes to the FLEX rules are
wholly consistent with recent comments by Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury, to the U.S. Senate. In particular, Secretary
Geithner has stated that:

    ``Market efficiency and price transparency should be improved in
derivatives markets by requiring the clearing of standardized contracts
through regulated [central counterparties] and by moving the
standardized part of these markets onto regulated exchanges and
regulated transparent electronic trade execution systems for OTC
derivatives and by requiring development of a system for timely
reporting of trades and prompt dissemination of prices and other trade
information. Furthermore, regulated financial institutions should be
encouraged to make greater use of regulated exchange-traded
derivatives. Competition between appropriately regulated OTC
derivatives markets and regulated exchanges will make both sets of
markets more efficient and thereby better serve end-users of
derivatives.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See letter from Secretary Geithner to the Honorable Harry
Reid, United States Senate (May 13, 2009), located at http://
www.financialstability.gov/docs/OTCletter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE notes that when the FLEX Option rules were initially proposed
and approved almost sixteen years ago, the Exchange was uncertain what
market impacts, if any, excessive FLEX positions would have on the
market or on firms.\9\ To minimize the risk of adverse market effects,
at the time the FLEX rules were first introduced the Exchange put in
place certain position limit boundaries (which have been modified over
time) and the requirement that the FLEX expiration date be no closer
than three business days from any Non-FLEX Option Expiration Friday
(which has been eliminated).\10\ Based on the Exchange's experience in
trading FLEX Options to date--specifically with respect to the
diversity in FLEX Option trading, the relatively small percentage FLEX
Options trading compared to overall trading on the Exchange, and the
lack of market disruptions or problems caused by or on existing FLEX
Option expirations--CBOE no longer believes the restrictions on
exercise settlement value are necessary to insulate Non-FLEX
expirations from the potential adverse market impacts of FLEX
expirations.\11\ To the contrary, CBOE believes that the restriction
actually places the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage to its OTC
counterparts in the market for customized options, and unnecessarily
limits market participants' ability to trade in an exchange environment
that offers the added benefits of transparency, price discovery,
liquidity, and financial stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 31361 (October 27,
1992) 57 FR 52655 (November 4, 1992) (SR-CBOE-92-17) (notice of
filing of proposed rule change relating to Flexible Exchange
Options) and 31920 (February 24, 1993), 58 FR 12280 (March 3, 1993)
(Order approving SR-CBOE-92-17). At the time of the proposal, the
Exchange also anticipated that there would be limited secondary
trading in any FLEX Option series having a particular expiration
date due to the diversity inherent in FLEX Options and that FLEX
expiration concentrations should be rare. These observations appear
to be accurate for the trading in FLEX Options to date.
    \10\ When the expiration date restrictions were eliminated, the
Exchange adopted the afore-mentioned restriction limiting exercise
settlement values for FLEX Index Options that expire on, or within
two business days of, an Expiration Friday to a.m. settlements. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59417 (February 18, 2009), 74 FR
8591 (February 25, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2008-115).
    \11\ In further support of its proposal, the Exchange also notes
that the p.m. and specified average price settlements are already
permitted for FLEX Index Options on any other business day except
on, or within two business days of, Expiration Friday. The Exchange
is not aware of any market disruptions or problems caused by the use
of these settlement methodologies on these expiration dates. The
Exchange is also not aware of any market disruptions or problems
caused by the use of customized options in the OTC markets that
expire on or near Expiration Friday and have a p.m. or specified
average exercise settlement value. In addition, the Exchange
believes the reasons for limiting expirations to a.m. settlement,
which is something the SEC has imposed since the early 1990s for
Non-FLEX Options, revolved around a concern about expiration
pressure on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') at the close that
are no longer relevant in today's market. Today, however, the
Exchange believes stock exchanges are much better able to handle
volume. There are multiple primary listing and unlisted trading
privilege (``UTP'') markets, and trading is dispersed among several
exchanges and alternative trading systems. In addition, the Exchange
believes that surveillance techniques are much more robust and
automated. In the early 1990s, it was also thought by some that
opening procedures allow more time to attract contra-side interest
to reduce imbalances. The Exchange believes, however, that today
order flow is predominantly electronic and the ability to smooth out
openings and closings is greatly reduced (e.g., market-on-close
procedures work just as well as openings). Also other markets, such
as the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, do not have the same type of pre-
opening imbalance disseminations as the NYSE, so many stocks are not
subject to the same procedures on Expiration Friday. In addition,
the Exchange believes that the NYSE has reduced the required time a
specialist has to wait after disseminating a pre-opening indication.
So, in this respect, the Exchange believes there is less time to
react in the opening than in the close. Moreover, to the extent
there may be a risk of adverse market effects attributable to p.m.
settled options (or certain average price settled options related to
the closing price) that would otherwise be traded in a non-
transparent fashion in the OTC market, the Exchange believes that
such risk would be lessened by making these customized options
eligible for trading in an exchange environment because of the added
transparency, price discovery, liquidity, and financial stability
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that certain position limit, aggregation
and exercise limit requirements would continue to apply to FLEX Options
in accordance with Rules 24A.7, 24A.8, 24B.7 and 24B.8. Additionally,
all FLEX options remain subject to the position reporting requirements
of Rule 4.13(a).\12\ Moreover, the Exchange and member organizations
each have the authority, pursuant to Rule 12.10, to impose additional
margin as deemed advisable. CBOE believes these existing safeguards
serve sufficiently to help monitor open interest in FLEX Option series
and significantly reduce any risk of adverse market effects that might
occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that
expire near Non-FLEX expirations and use a p.m. settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CBOE Rule 4.13(a) provides that ``[i]n a manner and form
prescribed by the Exchange, each member shall report to the
Exchange, the name, address, and social security or tax
identification number of any customer who, acting alone, or in
concert with others, on the previous business day maintained
aggregate long or short positions on the same side of the market of
200 or more contracts of any single class of option contracts dealt
in on the Exchange. The report shall indicate for each such class of
options, the number of option contracts comprising each such
position and, in the case of short positions, whether covered or
uncovered.'' For purposes of this Rule, the term ``customer'' in
respect of any member includes ``the member, any general or special
partner of the member, any officer or director of the member, or any
participant, as such, in any joint, group or syndicate account with
the member or with any partner, officer or director thereof.'' Rule
4.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange likewise believes that the elimination of the minimum
value size requirement would provide FLEX-participating members with
greater flexibility in structuring the terms of FLEX Options that best
comports with their and their customers' particular needs. In this
regard, the Exchange notes that the minimum value size requirement was
also originally put in place over sixteen years ago to limit
participation in FLEX Options to sophisticated, high net worth
investors rather than retail investors. However, the Exchange believes
the restriction is no longer necessary and is overly restrictive.
Again, based on the Exchange's experience to date, the minimum value
size requirement is too large to accommodate the needs of members and
their customers--who may be institutional, high net worth or retail--
that currently participate in the OTC market. In this regard, the
Exchange notes that it has recently received numerous requests from
broker-dealers representing institutional, high net worth and retail
investors indicating that the minimum value size requirement prevents
them from bringing transactions that are already taking place in the
OTC market to an exchange environment. Thus, Exchange believes that
eliminating the minimum value size requirement would further broaden
the base of investors that use FLEX Options to manage their trading and
investment risk, including

investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized
options, where similar size restrictions do not apply. The Exchange
also believes that this may open up FLEX Options to more retail
investors. The Exchange does not believe this raises any unique
regulatory concerns because, as indicated above, existing safeguards--
such as certain position limit, aggregation and exercise limit
requirements, reporting requirements, and margin requirements--would
continue to apply. In addition, the Exchange notes that FLEX Options
are subject to the options disclosure document (``ODD'') requirements
of Rule 9b-1\13\ under the Act.\14\ No broker or dealer can accept an
order from a customer to purchase or sell an option contract relating
to an options class that is the subject of a definitive ODD (including
FLEX Options), or approve the customer's account for the trading of
such an option, unless the broker or dealer furnishes or has furnished
to the customer a copy of the definitive ODD. The ODD contains a
description, special features, and special risks of FLEX Options.
Lastly, similar to any other options, FLEX Options are subject to
member firm supervision and suitability requirements, such as in CBOE
Rules 9.8 and 9.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing these changes, CBOE is cognizant of the need for
market participants to have substantial options transaction capacity
and flexibility to hedge their substantial investment portfolios, on
the one hand, and the potential for adverse effects that the exercise
settlement value and minimum value size restrictions were originally
designed to address, on the other. CBOE is also cognizant of the OTC
market, in which similar restrictions on exercise settlement value and
minimum size do not apply. In light of these considerations and
Secretary Geithner's recent comments on moving the standardized parts
of OTC contracts onto regulated exchanges, CBOE believes these changes
are appropriate and reasonable and would provide market participants
with additional flexibility in determining whether to execute their
customized options in an exchange environment or in the OTC market.
CBOE believes market participants benefit from being able to trade
these customized options in an exchange environment in several ways,
including, but not limited to, enhanced efficiency in initiating and
closing out positions; increased market transparency; and heightened
contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and
guarantor of FLEX Options.
    For the foregoing reasons, CBOE believes that the proposed
revisions to the exercise settlement values and minimum value size
requirements are reasonable and appropriate, would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and would facilitate transactions in
securities while continuing to foster the pubic interest and investor
protection.
2. Statutory Basis
    By expanding permissible expiration dates for FLEX Options, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in particular in that it should promote just
and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the elimination of the p.m. settlement date restrictions
for FLEX Index Options and the minimum size requirements for all FLEX
Options in the manner proposed does not raise any unique regulatory
concerns. In particular, although p.m. settlements may raise questions
with the Commission, the Exchange believes that market impact and
investor protection concerns will not be raised by this rule change.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would provide
members and investors with additional opportunities to trade customized
options in an exchange environment and subject to exchange-based rules,
and investors would benefit as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-087 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-087. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2009-087 and should be submitted on or before January 14, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30545 Filed 12-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42394-42395]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0066; Notice 1]

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (BATO), has
determined that certain Bridgestone VSB heavy-duty radial truck tires
do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of more than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds) and
Motorcycles. BATO filed a report dated April 7, 2016, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BATO
then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at
the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown at the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and their
implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 556, BATO submitted a petition
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of BATO's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 1,167 Bridgestone
VSB heavy-duty radial truck tires used for logging and other similar
applications that were manufactured between April 5, 2015, and March
30, 2016.
    III. Noncompliance: BATO stated that while the subject tires, which
are rated for both a single and a dual load, display the proper maximum
load rating and inflation pressure on the sidewall for a single load,
but are missing that information for a dual load. As a consequence, the
tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 provides, in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. . . .
    (d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure
of the tire, shown as follows:
    (Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single
__kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at
__kPa (__psi) cold.
    (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb)
at __kPa (__psi) cold. . . .

    V. Summary of BATO's Petition: BATO described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates motor vehicle safety and is unlikely to
have an adverse impact on motor vehicle safety. BATO states that the
subject tires meet or exceed all of the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 119. BATO also contends that the missing ``dual'' load
information has no effect on the performance of the subject tires and
that the subject tires were tested and passed at the single tire load,
which is higher and more punishing than that of the dual tire load.
    BATO asserted that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential
noncompliance petitions regarding noncompliances that are similar to
the subject noncompliance.

    BATO concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that BATO no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after BATO
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-15316 Filed 6-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P