[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76062-76064]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0113]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of an
Exemption Application From the Entertainer Motorcoach Council

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

ACTION: Denial of exemption application.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an exemption application from the Entertainer
Motorcoach Council (EMC) to allow its members to operate certain
vehicles that do not meet the emergency exit requirements in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The FMCSRs require
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000
pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, to meet the
emergency exit requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus Emergency exits and window retention and
release,'' in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 217 requires
side exits and at least one rear exit, but when the bus configuration
precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit is
required in the rear half of the bus to provide a means of egress when
the bus is overturned on either side. While EMC contends that
``Entertainer Coaches'' that do not have a rear or roof exit have
emergency exit windows that open manually at the rear sides of the
vehicle that provide openings large enough to admit unobstructed
passage, it did not provide evidence to enable the Agency to conclude
that motor carriers operating such vehicles could achieve a level of
safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that
would be obtained by complying with the regulation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from
the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR
51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public with an opportunity to
inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason
for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice
must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption
(up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

EMC Application for Exemption

    EMC applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.62(a) to allow motor
carriers to operate certain ``Entertainer Coaches'' that do not comply
with the regulation's emergency exit requirements. A copy of the
application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of
this notice.
    Section 393.62(a) of the FMCSRs requires buses with a GVWR of more
than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, to meet
the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217 in effect on the date
of manufacture. FMVSS No. 217 requires all buses (other than school
buses) to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which
collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times
the number of designated seating positions on the bus.

At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings
shall be provided on each side of a bus. However, in determining the
total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit,
regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square
centimeters of the total area requirement.
    For buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, FMVSS No. 217
requires that the unobstructed openings requirements be met by
providing side exits and at least one rear exit. The rear exit must
meet the requirements of S5.3-S5.5 of the standard when the bus is
upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the
occupant standing facing the exit. When the bus configuration precludes
installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the
requirements of S5.3-S5.5 of the standard when the bus is overturned on
either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be
provided in the rear half of the bus.
    Neither the FMVSSs nor the FMCSRs define the term ``Entertainer
Coach.'' In its application, EMC describes these vehicles as ``motor
vehicles constructed on a bus or MPV chassis which provide temporary
residential accommodations, as evidenced by the presence of at least
four of the following facilities: Cooking, refrigeration, self-
contained bathroom, heating and/or air conditioning, a potable water
supply including a faucet and sink, and a separate 110-125 volt
electric power supply. This definition generally tracks the definition
of `motor home' in the FMVSS and appropriately describes coaches that
are built as temporary residential accommodations for the entertainment
industry.''
    In support of its application, EMC states:

    EMC seeks this exemption because the rear exit and roof hatch
requirements in FMVSS 217 and FMCSR 393.62(a) preclude the efficient
and effective operation of Entertainer Coaches. As required by 49
CFR part 381.310(c)(5), Entertainer Coaches provide an equivalent
level of safety when equipped with emergency exit windows at the
rear sides of the vehicle that open manually and provide openings
large enough to admit unobstructed passage. Entertainer Coaches are
designed and used to provide temporary residential accommodations
and, because the occupants are celebrities, their families and their
staff, require an additional level of security to ensure security
and protection for their occupants.
    The requirement for rear exits in buses over 10,000 lbs. GVWR is
intended to ensure a sufficient amount of rear egress for vehicles
that carry a large number of passengers. The typical motorcoach is
45 feet in length and carry as many as 59 passengers. Entertainer
Coaches, in contrast, typically carry less than 15 passengers, and
many carry less than 10 passengers. EMC recognizes the importance of
assuring access through the rear of the vehicles, even when the
number of passengers is small. Such egress, however is readily
available--as applied to Entertainer Coaches--by the emergency exit
windows that come standard on the chassis generally used by the
Entertainer Coach industry, the Prevost Entertainer 2000. Those
windows allow for an egress area of 17'' tall by 24'' wide. The
Prevost roof hatch allows for a similar egress area, 23'' x 23''. As
a practical matter, the egress area is equivalent. As a result,
Entertainer Coaches with emergency exit windows offer an equivalent
level of safety as those with a roof hatch . . .
    Entertainer Coaches have an exemplary safety experience. Unlike
the typical motorcoach passengers, these vehicle occupants are well
acquainted with the vehicle. In particular, they are fully aware of
the location and need for fast exit in the event of an emergency.
Although fires can and do occur on these vehicles, the small number
of occupants ensures safe exit from either the front or the back of
the vehicle without the need for additional roof hatches. Such
fires, furthermore, typically come from the back of the bus and
occur when the bus is upright, further offsetting the practical need
for a rear exit that meets the specific requirements of FMVSS 217.

    EMC states that ``If the exception is not granted, the entertainers
will suffer serious disruption to their tour schedules. Denial of the
exemption will also lead to significant economic impacts due to the
failure of the entertainers to be able to appear as scheduled. The
substantial disruption is not merited by any insistence on the strict
construction of any overly broad requirement that does not take the
unique circumstances of Entertainer Coaches into account.''

Public Comments

    On May 1, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of the EMC application and
asked for public comment (80 FR 25002). The Agency received five
comments, all opposed to EMC's exemption application.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), the United Motorcoach Association (UMA), and an
anonymous commenter all cited similar concerns in opposing the
exemption application. The commenters noted that EMC had failed to
demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be maintained in
certain crash scenarios with only side emergency exit windows, but no
rear and/or roof exits as required by FMVSS No. 217, specifically in a
rollover crash scenario. For example, the NTSB stated ``A vehicle lying
on its side with exits located only on the sides would be difficult to
evacuate from because the only available emergency exits would be above
the occupants. This could require an occupant to climb or be lifted as
high as the width of the vehicle. The NTSB does not consider that
emergency exits on two sides of a vehicle provide an alternative for
emergency evacuation equivalent to the current requirements, which
include either roof or rear emergency exits.'' Similarly, CVSA stated
``In the event of a crash that leaves the bus on its side, the side
window emergency exits and the entry door (which is usually counted as
an emergency exit) will likely be unusable, which is why the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) require the rear window or roof emergency
exits. The exemption request from EMC does not effectively demonstrate
how an equivalent level of safety can be maintained.'' The Advocates
stated that ``[t]he Applicants have not met the statutory and
regulatory requirements for the exemption, including failing to provide
an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may cause and
failing to provide information on the specific countermeasures to be
undertaken to ensure an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved absent the requested exemption.''
    FMCSA Response: On October 14, 1967, the Federal Highway
Administration published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) concerning the possible establishment of a standard regarding
bus side and rear windows, push-out type windows, and emergency exits
(32 FR 14278). On August 15, 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing a standard that would require buses to meet minimum
requirements in the above areas (35 FR 13025). The NPRM proposed that
each bus, except school buses, have side and rear push-out windows
which, when fully open, provide unobstructed openings for emergency
exit. There were no provisions regarding roof exits in the NPRM.
    On May 10, 1972, NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 217, a new motor vehicle
safety standard establishing minimum requirements for bus window
retention and release to reduce the likelihood of passenger ejection in
accidents and enhance passenger exit in emergencies (37 FR 9394). While
the 1970 NPRM did not include provisions regarding roof exits, the
final rule permitted installation of an alternate roof exit when the
bus configuration precludes

provision of a rear exit, providing that the roof exit meets the
release, extension, and identification requirements of the standard.
Specifically, the final rule noted ``The NHTSA has established this
alternative in order to allow design flexibility while providing for
emergency egress in rollover situations'' [Emphasis added]. Notably,
the emergency exit requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds have remained largely unchanged since the establishment
of FMVSS No. 217 more than 40 years ago.
    FMCSA agrees with the commenters. The EMC application did not
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an Entertainer Coach
without rear and/or roof emergency exits would be able to provide an
equivalent level of safety when compared to a compliant vehicle,
specifically in a rollover crash scenario. The intent of the
requirements for rear and roof emergency exits in S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No.
217 is quite clear, in that those exits are required to meet the
emergency exit release, opening, and identification requirements of the
standard ``when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant
standing facing the exit.'' Without the required rear and/or roof
exits, emergency egress in rollover crash scenarios will likely be
limited, possibly leading to increased numbers of fatalities and
injuries in such crashes.

FMCSA Decision

    Based on the above, FMCSA denies the EMC exemption application.
FMCSA is unable to determine--as required for an exemption by 49 CFR
381.305(a)--that motor carriers would be able to maintain a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the
exemption.

    Issued on: November 30, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-30802 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18973]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-394-000]

Panther Interstate Pipeline Energy, LLC; Notice of Cost and
Revenue Study

April 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, Panther Interstate Pipeline
Energy, LLC, (Panther Interstate) tendered for filing its cost and
revenue study in compliance with the Commission order issued on
December 24, 2003 in this docket. Panther Interstate states that the
cost and revenue study follows the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR
154.313 and is based on the twelve months ending December 31, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time April 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7168 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64144-64146]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65529; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-131]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short Term Option Program

October 11, 2011.
    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 September 28, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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 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 with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule

1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) and Rule 1101A (Terms of
Option Contracts) to expand the Short Term Option Program (``STO
Program'' or ``Program'') \3\ so that the Exchange may: Select thirty
option classes on which Short Term Option Series \4\ may be opened; and
may open certain Short Term Option Series that are opened by other
securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62296 (June 15,
2010), 75 FR 35115 (June 21, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-84) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness permanently establishing STO
Program on the Exchange). Short term options are generally known as
``STOs'' or ``weeklies.'' The STO Program was last expanded in 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63875 (February 9, 2011), 76
FR 8793 (February 15, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-183) (order approving
expansion of STO Program).
    \4\ Short Term Option Series are series in an option class that
is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the
series is opened for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a
business day and that expires on the Friday of the next business
week. If a Thursday or Friday is not a business day, the series may
be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately
prior to that Thursday or Friday, respectively. Rules 1000(b)(44),
1000A(b)(16), Commentary .11 to Rule 1012 and Rule 1101A(b)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the proposal be approved on an
accelerated basis.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, 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 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 amend Rule 1012 and
1101A to expand the STO Program so that the Exchange may select thirty
option classes on which Short Term Option Series may be opened; and may
open Short Term Option Series that are opened by other securities
exchanges (the ``STO Exchanges'') in option classes selected by such
exchanges under their respective short term option rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the filings of STO Exchanges regarding permanent
approval of STO programs, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
59824 (April 27, 2009), 74 FR 20518 (May 4, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-018)
(approval order); 62444 (July 2, 2010), 75 FR 39595 (July 9, 2010)
(SR-ISE-2010-72) (approval order); 62297 (June 15, 2010), 75 FR
35111 (June 21, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-073) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness); 62296 (June 15, 2010), 75 FR 35111 (June
21, 2010) (SR-Arca-2010-059) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness); 62296 (June 15, 2010), 75 FR 35111 (June 21, 2010)
(SR-Amex-2010-062) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness);
62505(July 15, 2010), 75 FR 42792 (July 22, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-047)
(approval order); and 62597 (July 29, 2010), 75 FR 47335 (August 5,
2010) (SR-BATS-2010-020) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STO Program is codified in Commentary .11 to Rule 1012 and Rule
1101A(b)(vi). These sections state that after an option class has been
approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open
for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of
options on no more than fifteen option classes that expire on the
Friday of the following business week that is a business day. In
addition to the fifteen-option class limitation, there is also a
limitation that no more than twenty series for each expiration date in
those classes that may be opened for trading.\6\ Furthermore, the
strike price of each short term option has to be fixed with
approximately the same number of strike prices being opened above and
below the value of the underlying security at about the time that the
short term options are initially opened for trading on the Exchange,
and with strike prices being within thirty percent (30%) above or below
the closing price of the underlying security from the preceding day.
The Exchange does not propose any changes to these additional Program
limitations. The Exchange proposes only to increase from fifteen to
thirty the number of option classes that may be opened pursuant to the
Program and to give the Exchange the ability to open STO Series that
are opened by STO Exchanges that, like the Exchange, have short term
option programs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ However, if the Exchange opens less than twenty (20) short
term options for a Short Term Option Expiration Date, additional
series may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange
deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer
demand or when the market price of the underlying security moves
substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened. Any additional strike prices listed by the Exchange
shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the current
price of the underlying security. The Exchange may also open
additional strike prices of Short Term Option Series that are more
than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying security
provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series,
as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or
their brokers (market-makers trading for their own account shall not
be considered when determining customer interest under this
provision). Commentary .11(d) to Rule 1012 and Rule 1101A(b)(vi)(D).
    \7\ See supra note 5. The Exchange notes that the provision
allowing the Exchange to open weeklies series that are opened by STO
Exchanges is parallel to the provision that allows the Exchange to
open weeklies classes that are opened by STO Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal reason for the proposed expansion is market demand
for additional STO classes and series. There is continuing strong
customer demand for having the ability to execute hedging and trading
strategies via STOs,\8\ particularly in the current fast and volatile
multi-faceted trading and investing environment that extends across
numerous markets and platforms.\9\ The Exchange has observed increased
demand for STO classes and/or series, particularly when market moving
events such as significant market volatility, corporate events, or,
large market, sector, or individual issue price swings have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange noted, in its last STO Program filing, that it
was requested by a retail investor to reinstate a short term option
class that the Exchange had to remove from trading because of the
five-class option limit within the Program. The investor told the
Exchange that he had used the removed class as a powerful tool for
hedging a market sector, and that various strategies that the
investor put into play were disrupted and eliminated when the class
was removed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63875 (February
9, 2011), 76 FR 8793 (February 15, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-183) (order
approving).
    \9\ These include, without limitation, options, equities,
futures, derivatives, indexes, exchange traded funds, exchange
traded notes, currencies, and over the counter instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order that the Exchange not exceed the fifteen option class and
twenty option series restriction, the Exchange has had to turn away STO
customers (traders and investors) because it could not list, or had to
delist, STOs or could not open adequate STO Series because of
restrictions in the STO Program. This has negatively impacted investors
and traders, particularly retail public customers, who have on several
occasions requested the Exchange not to remove short term option
classes or add short term option classes, or have requested the
Exchange to open STO series so that they could execute trading/hedging
strategies.
    Following is an example of the impact of inadequate STO
opportunities. An investor or trader executing a hedging or trading
strategy using STOs may need to close his NFLX 240 strike STOs on the
Exchange to roll into the 120 strike options. The 120 strike is not
offered on the Exchange because of STO Program restrictions; however,
it is offered on another exchange. If the trader wants to

execute the strategy on the Exchange, he could not do so because the
120 strike order could not be opened on the Exchange and would be
rejected. To execute the strategy, the investor would have to close his
240 strike position on the Exchange and then open a 120 strike position
on the other exchange that offers the strike. This could ostensibly
increase the cost and ``leg risk'' of executing the roll strategy, and
negatively impact the time advantage of executing one complex order to
roll the position on the Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Such roll strategies are often executed toward the end of
the lifecycle of a weekly option, when theta (time value) decay is
increasingly significant and price movement may be accelerated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the STO option fragmentation may cause confusion for
retail customers and discourage them from using complex STO orders when
they could be the most advantageous for effective execution of trading
and hedging strategies. The Exchange feels that it is essential that
such negative, potentially costly and time-consuming impacts on retail
investors are eliminated by modestly expanding the Program to enable
additional classes and series to be traded. The change proposed by the
Exchange should greatly minimize the potential fragmented nature of the
short term options program and allow execution of more trading and
hedging strategies on the Exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition to the noted cost and time-value impact, there
is also a competitive impact. First, the proposal would enable the
Exchange to provide market participants with an opportunity to
execute their strategy wholly on their preferred market, namely the
Exchange. And second, the proposal would diminish the potential for
foregone market opportunity on the Exchange caused by being forced
to delist STO Series in order to list another STO or series to meet
market demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with
trading of an expanded number of classes in the Program.
    The Exchange believes that the STO Program has provided investors
with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the ability to
more closely tailor their investment and risk management strategies and
decisions. Furthermore, the Exchange has had to eliminate option
classes and reject trading requests on numerous occasions because of
the limitations imposed by the Program. For these reasons, the Exchange
requests an expansion of the current Program and the opportunity to
provide investors with additional short term option classes and series
for investment, trading, and risk management purposes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ 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 believes that expanding the current STO Program
will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in
greater number of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 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 Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-131 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-Phlx-2011-131. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-131 and should be
submitted on or before November 7, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26676 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P