PVCP PIPs: The Context Elizabeth A. Milewski, Ph. D.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Coordination and Policy October 13 15, 2004 Organization of Today's Presentation:

Setting the Stage

Overview: Charge and Context   Dr. Elizabeth Milewski, EPA/ OPPTS

Gene Flow   Dr. Anne Fairbrother, EPA/ ORD

Viral Interactions   Dr. Melissa Kramer, EPA/ OPPTS

Other Scientific Considerations   Dr. Elizabeth Milewski, EPA/ OPPTS Charge to the SAP

Provide scientific advice to assist EPA in its evaluation of several technical issues associated with PVCP PIPs

Specifically, respond to a series of technical questions related to exposure and hazard considerations for PVCP PIPs What is a PVCP PIP?

PIP is acronym for " plant incorporated protectant"

PVCP is acronym for " plant virus coat protein" What is a Plant Incorporated Protectant ( PIP)?

" . . . a pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance. . . ." A PVCP PIP is . . .

. . . a PIP created from the gene, or a segment of the gene, that codes for a coat protein of a virus that naturally infects crop plants. Benefits of PVCP PIPs An effective means of controlling virus infection has economic benefits   Higher yield   Reduce use of chemical pesticides to control insect vectors   In some cases, only option Technical Questions for SAP

Gene flow

Viral interactions

Other scientific considerations Gene Flow EPA is seeking SAP assistance:

  To better understand

circumstances in which the flow of PVCP PIPs from transgenic plants to wild or weedy relatives occurs, and

the potential for adverse impacts from such gene flow   To identify and evaluate conditions that might minimize gene flow, should minimization be seen as appropriate Viral Interactions EPA is seeking SAP assistance to identify and evaluate:

  Circumstances wherein interactions between introduced virus sequences and invading viruses might be

more frequent than expected to occur in natural mixed virus interactions, or

unlike those expected to occur in such circumstances.

  Conditions that might minimize such occurrences,

should minimization be seen as appropriate. Other Scientific Considerations EPA is seeking SAP assistance in evaluating:

  Several other technical questions associated with PVCP PIPs

Boundaries of assumptions?

Additional considerations for minimizing risk? SAP Role

Assist EPA in better understanding:

  Degree of risk for each issue   Degree of certainty of estimates   Relevance of hypothetical vs data supported   Direction science taking for the specific issues raised

Provide technical recommendations and advice on the technical questions posed How Will SAP Advice Be Used?

Advice will be used within the parameters established by the statutes under which EPA operates EPA Legal Context

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA)

  Protect environment   Protect human health

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act section 408 ( FFDCA)

  Determine safe levels of pesticide residues in food/ feed PVCP PIPs and FIFRA?

FIFRA defines a pesticide as:

  " any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest; . . ."

PVCP gene sequences can confer resistance to the virus from which it was derived, and often to related viruses, to the recipient plant. U. S. Biotech Regulation:

Coordinated Framework Three U. S. regulatory agencies play complementary roles   EPA   regulation of pesticidal substances   FDA  food safety, except for pesticides   USDA   plant pest risks History of PVCP PIPs at EPA

1994: Proposals to exempt PVCP PIPs   All   Some depending on potential for weediness

1997: Supplemental request for comment on proposal to exempt PVCP PIPs

2001: Supplemental request for comment on proposal to exempt PVCP PIPs Wide Range of Comments

Examples of support for exemption proposal   Wild species . . . are generally already resistant or exhibit a high degree of tolerance to infection. ( 29/ 300369)

  Since viral coat proteins do not act in toxic manner, all viral coat proteins should be exempt. ( 69/ 300369)

Examples opposing exemption proposal   The sexual transfer of engineered virus resistance would readily confer an advantage to weedy populations.

( 29/ 300371)

  [ G] enetically engineered virus resistant crops present serious ecological risks: i) new viral strains may emerge through recombination and transcapsidation . . . .

( 05/ 300370) 2000 NRC Report

" Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants:

Science and Regulation"

  National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences

Raised a number of questions still being discussed today, e. g.,

  About the potential for gene flow from transgenics to weedy relatives   Suggestions that transgenics could be constructed with mitigating controls to reduce potential for viral interactions Relevance For the SAP

Long history involving complicated issues   but this meeting narrowly focused

Provide scientific advice to assist EPA in its evaluation of several technical issues associated with PVCP PIPs

Focus on series of specific questions posed by EPA Gene Flow in Viral Coat Protein Transgenic Plants Anne Fairbrother, D. V. M., Ph. D.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development October 13 15, 2004 Gene Flow

Gene flow ( for the purposes of this discussion) refers to movement of genes ( including transgenes) from crops to weeds, wild relatives or other crops

Introgression is when the gene becomes fixed in the recipient population Gene Flow Reviews General

Ellstrand, 2003

GM Science Review Panel 2003

NRC 2000

Snow 2002

Stewart 2003 PVCP PIPs

Bartsch et al. 1996

Bartsch 1997

Bartsch et al. 2001

Fuchs et al. 2004

Ilardi & Barba 2001

Power 2002

Spencer & Snow 2001

Tepfer 2002 Gene Flow

Gene flow will occur every year

Introgression may happen quickly or take multiple years and introductions, depending upon:

  Rates of pollen and seed dispersal   Population size of donor and recipient plants   Selection pressures   Reproductive times Gene Flow Concerns as discussed in the literature

Potential effects on recipient plants   Increase or decrease fitness

Potential effects on plant community   Changed competitive advantage   Extinction risks

Potential effects on genetic diversity   " genetic swamping"

Potential indirect effects Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Transgenes act like conventional genes for dispersal and introgression rates

Gene flow can be wide spread and happen regularly

Increases, decreases, or no changes in fitness can result from gene flow Snow, A. June 02 Nature Biotech 20: 542

Sterile F1s can propagate widely via asexual reproduction

Genes not on the chromosomes can be transferred

Fitness changes occur:

  only after release from strong limiting factors Snow, A. June 02 Nature Biotech 20: 542 Gene Flow Lessons Learned Ecological Fitness

Ecological fitness is the relative ability to contribute offspring to the next generation   May be measured by the finite rate of increase of a population or number of offspring from an individual

Fitness strategies in plants include:

  Increased number or size of seed produced   Faster rate of maturity   Greater resistance to stress ( drought, temperature extremes, disease, parasites, soil properties, etc.)

12 out of the 13 most important conventionally bred world food crops have demonstrated gene flow to wild relatives   7 have introgressed ( Ellstrand et al., 1999)

  Also numerous of the less important crops ( Snow and Morand Pama, 1997)

Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Tens of thousands of potential natural hybridizations among plants   165 confirmed ( 65 sufficiently documented)

Can be confused with evolutionary convergence and lineage sorting   New molecular markers ( e. g., DNA polymorphisms) increase ability to determine degree & type of relatedness Stewart, 2003 Nat. Rev. Gen. 4: 306 Gene Flow Lessons Learned Gene Flow Lessons Learned Example of natural introgression Iris fulva 2n = 42 Salt marshes Male parent Iris hexagona 2n = 44 Freshwater swamps Female parent Stewart, 2003 Nat. Rev. Gen. 4: 306 I. fulva like: intermediate or higher fitness I. hexagona like: intermediate or same fitness Iris nelsonii : Fixed derivative of the hybridization of I. fulva X I. hexagona X I. brevicaulis ( rDNA, allozymes, cpDNA) Gene Flow Lessons Learned Example of natural introgression ( I. fulva X I. hexagona X I. brevicaulis) Stewart, 2003 Nat. Rev. Gen. 4: 306

Local geographical formation of hybrid swarms

Gene flow beyond the range of original hybridization zone

Formation of a new stabilized taxon

Introgression of transgenes from GM crops to wild plant populations   More difficult than from wild plants to crops   Linkage to domestication alleles imposes a barrier   Domestication genes reduce ecological fitness Stewart, 2003 Nat. Rev. Gen. 4: 306 Gene Flow Lessons Learned

With rare exceptions transgenic traits in plants are almost all dominant traits   Transgenic hybrids will always express the trait   Will be immediately subject to selection pressures Reviewed by:

Ellstrand, N. 2003 Dangerous Liaisons?

Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Traits that distinguish cultivated plants are usually recessive alleles at individual loci with major fitness effect   sometimes modified by a few extra loci of minor fitness effect Reviewed by:

Ellstrand, N. 2003 Dangerous Liaisons?

Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Mathematical models argue that even very low transmission rates of transgenes to wild populations can eventually result in fixation of the gene What is the ecological significance of low levels of gene flow? Haygood et al., 2003 Proc. Res. Soc. Lond.

Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Rates of mating of crops with wild relatives are no different for transgenic crops than for conventional crops   Exceptions are those crops engineered to reduce fertility Reviewed by:

Ellstrand, N. 2003 Dangerous Liaisons?

Gene Flow Lessons Learned

Potential risk of crop to wild introgression of transgenes categorized by:

  Co location with wild relatives   Evidence for crop to wild gene introgression   Genetic differentiation between crop and wild relative( s) Stewart, 2003 Nat. Rev. Gen. 4: 306 Gene Flow Lessons Learned Gene Flow Concerns for PVCP PIP Crops

Studies have shown significant negative impacts of virus infection on growth,

survivorship and reproduction of plants.

Examples include:

  Brassica spp.

  Wild squash   Purslane   Chickweed   Wild oats Reviewed by:

Tepfer, M. 2002 Ann. Rev. Phytophysiol. 40: 467 91

Viruses are controlling factors for some plant populations

Therefore, concerned with increased weediness & competitive advantage of plants with virus resistance genes Reviewed by:

Tepfer, M. 2002 Ann. Rev. Phytophysiol. 40: 467 91 Gene Flow Concerns for PVCP PIP Crops Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus ( BYDV)

A luteovirus

Significant amount of crop damage

Conventional breeding has not developed resistance or tolerance

Some BYDV strains move ( aphid transmitted),

into wild hosts ( wild oats and squirreltail grass)

which have no natural resistance & show signs of infection Power, 2002 Ch 5 in Letourneau & Barrows Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus ( BYDV)   Wild Oats

Wild oats are agronomic weeds in cultivated cereal crops.

Introduced wild oats already out compete native grasses in CA.

Cultivated oats hybridize readily with wild oats ( 4.8%)

Fitness ( growth and reproduction) could be enhanced with a PVCP PIP against BYDV Power, 2002 Ch 5 in Letourneau & Barrows Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus ( BYDV) Power, 2002 Ch 5 in Letourneau & Barrows

Release from BYDV infection could increase competitive advantage   Increased weediness ( oats, barley, wheat)

  Increased invasion of grasslands

Might occur only in the absence of other mitigating environmental factors. Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus ( BNYVV)

Sea beet ( Beta vulgaris L. subsp.

maritima)

  Progenitor of cultivated beet ( subsp.

vulgaris)

  Susceptible to BNYVV

BNYVV absent in brackish environment where sea beets grow   Fungal vector does not tolerate salty soils Reviewed by:

Tepfer, M. 2002 Ann. Rev. Phytophysiol. 40: 467 91 Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus ( BNYVV)

Receipt of transgene that confers resistance to BNYVV by the sea beet   No selective advantage or disadvantage   Lack of vector for transmitting virus Reviewed by:

Tepfer, M. 2002 Ann. Rev. Phytophysiol. 40: 467 91

Sexual compatibility

Grown in the same vicinity

Overlapping flowering times

F1 hybrids must persist for > 1 generation

F1 must be fertile and backcross Features that Increase the Likelihood of Gene Flow Features that Increase the Likelihood of Introgression

Dominance

Selective advantage

Absence of association with deleterious crop alleles or traits

Location on a shared genome

Location on a homologous chromosome

Location on non rearranged chromosomes Approaches to decrease likelihood of gene flow and introgression

Placement on non transferred chromosome

Linkage to deleterious crop alleles or traits

Insertion into maternally transmitted organelle DNA ( e. g., chloroplasts)

Induced sterility ( e. g., decrease pollen formation,

seed development or germination)

Deployment in areas where crops have no known wild relatives Power, 2002 Ch 5 in Letourneau & Barrows Conclusions

Gene flow and gene introgression can occur between crops and wild and weedy relatives   Likelihood and consequences vary depending upon crop species, recipient species, and genes transferred

Questions remain about how to characterize potential for risks of crops with PVCP PIPs Viral Interactions in Viral Coat Protein Transgenic Plants Melissa G. Kramer, Ph. D.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Coordination and Policy October 13 15, 2004 Virus Infection

Virus enters plant through mechanical breach of cell wall

Virus sheds protein coat and replicates

Movement proteins modify plasmodesmata and allow the virus to cross cell walls and spread throughout the plant

Virus available for transmission to new plant Transgenic Virus Resistance

Many types of transgenes have been used experimentally to confer resistance   Plant viral coat proteins ( PVCPs)

  Viral replicase   Movement proteins   Nuclear inclusion genes   Nonviral sequences

PVCPs are the most common

Report of first PVCP transgenic plant published 1986 Plant Viral Coat Proteins ( PVCPs)

 Encapsidate viral nucleic acid  Important in every stage of infection   Replication   Movement throughout an infected plant   Transport from plant to plant Proposed Mechanisms of CP mediated resistance

Protein mediated   level of protection correlated with level of mRNA and protein accumulation   Transgenic CPs block uncoating of virions upon entry into cell

Nucleic acid mediated   no correlation between mRNA and level of protection   Post translational transgene silencing suppresses expression of the transgene and accumulating viral RNA that shares sequence homology with the transgene Mixed Virus Infections

Viral genomes from different strains/ species simultaneously infect the same plant

Can be extremely common

In rare cases, have been implicated in adverse agricultural or environmental events   e. g., Ugandan cassava mosaic disease

In PVCP transgenic plants, every infection is a mixed infection with respect to the PVCP gene Critical Question Are the risks associated with virus interactions in PVCP transgenic plants greater in degree or different in kind than in natural mixed infections? Issues to Consider

For ( 1) recombination, ( 2) heterologous encapsidation, and ( 3) synergy   Occurrence under natural conditions   Potential to occur in VCP transgenic plants   Ways to reduce the frequency if warranted

Field evaluations   ecological significance

Is the frequency of virus interactions in PVCPtransgenic plants different than in natural mixed infections?

Is the nature of virus interactions in PVCP transgenic plants different than in natural mixed infections? Recombination

Recombination: segments from different parental molecules form chimeric molecules

Mechanism in RNA viruses: template switching of the viral replicase during replication Recombination Under Natural Conditions

Rarely leads to new, viable viruses

Still a significant role in virus evolution

More likely among closely related viruses

Both virus virus recombination and virus host recombination Recombination in Transgenic Plants with Virus Transgenes

Nucleic acids of viruses that infect the host available for recombination with host transgenes

Lab experiments show that such recombination can occur   High selection pressure   Ecological significance unclear Reducing Frequency of Recombination

Remove 3' untranslated region

Exclude replicase recognition sites or other hotspots

Reduce extent of shared sequence similarity

Use smallest viral fragment possible

Insert GC rich sequences downstream of AU rich sequences Heterologous Encapsidation Coat protein subunits of one virus surround the nucleic acid of a different virus Heterologous Encapsidation Under Natural Conditions

Can affect virus vector interactions

Regular occurrence among some plant viruses   May be required for transmission   Natural part of virus epidemiology

More likely among closely related viruses Limited Environmental Concern due to Heterologous Encapsidation

Vector specificity often only partially determined by coat protein

Vectors may carry a heterologously encapsidated virus only to plants it already infects

If virus replicates in novel host, it is encapsidated in its own coat protein

However

  With high frequency of heterologous encapsidation,

secondary transmission among new host plants may not be needed for impact   Virus may rapidly evolve in a new host   Virus may be exposed to new vectors once in novel host Heterologous Encapsidation in Transgenic Plants with Viral Transgenes Protein ( when produced) from PVCP transgenes can encapsidate even unrelated infecting viruses Reducing the Impact of Heterologous Encapsidation

Certain regions affect aphid transmission specificity   Readthrough domain of the CP   Major capsid protein   Loop structure of the CP   DAG 3 amino acid sequence

PVCP gene modifications can reduce frequency of heterologous encapsidation/ vector transmission   Mutations in assembly motif of CP   DAG triplet deleted   First 420 nucleotides deleted Synergy Disease severity of two viruses together is greater than expected based on severity of each alone Synergy Under Natural Conditions

Many known viral synergisms

More common among some viruses than others

Coat protein less likely to be responsible than other regions Synergy in Transgenic Plants with Viral Transgenes

Agroeconomic concern

Evaluated before deployment

Farmers would quickly abandon products with synergistic infections Reducing the Frequency of Synergy

Constructs can be engineered to reduce likelihood   Avoid particular transgenes   Use defective copies of genes

Stacking multiple resistances in the same plant Field Evaluations of Viral Interactions in Transgenic Plants

Most experiments have been done in the lab

Field evaluations are critical for assessing impacts and likelihood of events

Limited number of published evaluations provide no evidence of adverse effects Thomas, et al. 1998

25,000 potato plants 442 lines transformed with 16 PLRV CP constructs

Exposed to field infection over 6 years

No new viruses or viruses with altered transmission or disease characteristics detected Molecular Breeding 4: 407 417 Fuchs et al. 1998

Transgenic melon and squash containing CP from aphid transmissible strain of CMV

Plants infected with aphid non transmissible strain of CMV

Found no aphid vectored spread of nontransmissible strain Transgenic Research 7: 449 462 Fuchs et al. 1999

Transgenic squash containing CP from aphid transmissible strain of WMV

Plants infected with aphid non transmissible strain of ZYMV

No ZYMV transmission in nontransgenic fields

ZYMV transmitted to 77/ 3700 ( 2%) of plants in transgenic fields ( likely due to heterologous encapsidation), but no epidemic developed Transgenic Research 8: 429 439 Lin et al. 2003

Estimated biological and genetic diversity of CMV isolates before and after development of transgenic squash containing CP from CMV, ZYMV, and WMV

Most CMV isolates showed no significant sequence changes after infecting transgenic squash

One isolate did differ, but not due to recombination or selection Journal of General Virology 84: 249 258 Vigne et al. 2004

Transgenic grapevines containing CP of GFLV

Nontransgenic scions grafted onto transgenic and nontransgenic rootstocks; exposed over 3 years to GFLV infection

Transgenic grapevines did not assist emergence of viable GFLV recombinants or affect molecular diversity of indigenous population Transgenic Research 13: 165 179 Does the Frequency of Interactions Change in PVCP Transgenic Plants?

Difficult to measure directly due to rarity of events

Some factors suggest a decrease in frequency in transgenic systems   Lower concentration of cellular RNA transcripts from transgene than infecting virus   Concentration of infecting virus reduced

Some factors suggest a possible increase in frequency in transgenic systems   Constitutive promoters   Natural temporal/ spatial expression patterns obscured Could PVCP Transgenic Plants Lead to Novel Viral Interactions?

Transgenic multi resistance

Heterologous resistance

Use of exotic strain's CP

Expression in new cells/ tissues

Altered CP genes Summary: Overarching Issues for Panel to Consider

Are viral interactions in PVCP transgenic plants an environmental concern above and beyond what occurs naturally?

  Potential for increased frequency of interactions?

  Are novel interactions likely to occur and have any adverse environmental impacts?

Of what value are mechanisms to reduce likelihood of some interactions? Other Scientific Considerations Elizabeth A. Milewski, Ph. D.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Coordination and Policy October 13 15, 2004 Other Scientific Considerations

Boundaries of assumptions?

Additional considerations for minimizing risk? Boundaries of Assumptions?

EPA is seeking SAP assistance in examining how far a PVCP PIP can be modified while still supporting assumptions of   Dietary safety for humans   No new effects on nontarget species   No potential for novel viral interactions Dietary Safety

Assumption is that humans have consumed viral coat proteins for generations as part of food supply

To what degree and in what ways might a PVCP gene be modified and the PVCP PIP still present no new human dietary exposures?

Can the SAP provide a succinct statement describing the boundary? No New Effects on Nontargets

Assumption is that species that interact with nontransgenic comparator plants have been exposed to viral coat proteins for generations

To what degree and in what ways might a PVCP gene be modified and the PVCP PIP still present no new effects on nontarget species?

Can the SAP provide a succinct statement describing the boundary? No Potential for Novel Viral Interactions

To what degree and in what ways might a PVCP gene be modified before it becomes a concern that novel viral interactions could occur because the gene could be significantly different from any existing in nature?

Can the SAP provide a succinct statement describing the boundary? Additional Considerations for Minimizing Risk?

Are there any additional considerations related to the PVCP PIP construct that should be considered when attempting to identify risk?

Are there any scientific considerations beyond gene flow, recombination, and heterologous encapsidation as posed in EPA's questions? Charge to the SAP

Provide scientific advice to assist EPA in its evaluation of several technical issues associated with PVCP PIPs

Specifically, respond to a series of technical questions related to exposure and hazard considerations for PVCP PIPs   Gene flow   Viral interactions   Other scientific considerations Q1 What scientific evidence supports or refutes the idea that plant viruses have significant effects on reproduction, survival, and growth of plant populations in natural settings? Is there scientific evidence that plant populations freed from viral pressure could have increased competitive ability leading to changes in plant population dynamics? Q2 Please comment on the validity of the Agency list of crops that have no wild or weedy relatives in the United States with which they can produce viable hybrids in nature ( i. e., tomato, potato, soybean, and corn). Q3 Please identify other crops that have no wild or weedy relatives in the United States with which they can produce viable hybrids in nature, e. g., papaya, peanut, and/ or chickpea. Q4 What laboratory techniques used to achieve genetic exchange between species ( e. g.,

embryo rescue, use of intermediate bridging crosses, protoplast fusion) are not indicative of possible genetic exchange between these species in the field? Conversely, what techniques, if any, used in laboratory or greenhouse experiments provide the most reliable indication of ability to hybridize in the field? Q5 Given that current bioconfinement techniques are not 100% effective, what would the environmental implications be of extremely low transfer rates of virus resistance genes over time? Q6 Please comment on the prevalence of tolerance and/ or resistance to viruses in wild relatives of crops. Q7 Please specify techniques that do or do not provide measures of tolerance and/ or resistance that are relevant to field conditions. Q8 How do environmental or other factors ( e. g.,

temporal variations) affect tolerance and/ or resistance? Given the expected variability,

what measures of tolerance and/ or resistance would be reliable? Q9 What would be the ecological significance if a plant population acquired a small increase in viral tolerance and/ or resistance above a naturally occurring level? Q10 Please comment on how necessary and/ or sufficient these conditions are to minimize the potential for the PVCP PIP to harm the environment through gene flow from the plant containing the PVCP PIP to wild or weedy relatives. Would any other conditions work as well or better? Q10 Conditions

The plant into which the PVCP PIP has been inserted has no wild or weedy relatives in the United States with which it can produce viable hybrids in nature, e. g., corn, tomato, potato, or soybean; or

Genetic exchange between the plant into which the PVCP PIP has been inserted and any existing wild or weedy relatives is substantially reduced by modifying the plant with a scientifically documented method ( e. g., through male sterility); or

It has been empirically demonstrated that all existing wild or weedy relatives in the United States with which the plant can produce a viable hybrid are tolerant or resistant to the virus from which the coat protein is derived. Q11 To what extent are novel viral interactions ( e. g.,

recombination, heterologous encapsidation)

involving a viral transgene an environmental concern? Q12 What conclusions can be drawn as to whether the likelihood of recombination and/ or heterologous encapsidation would be increased or decreased in a transgenic plant compared to its non bioengineered counterpart? Q13 How effective is deleting the 3' untranslated region of the PVCP gene as a method for reducing the frequency of recombination in the region of the PVCP gene? Is this method universally applicable to all potential PVCP PIP constructs? Would any other methods work as well or better? Which methods are sufficiently effective and reproducible such that actual measurement of rates to verify rate reduction would be unnecessary? Q14 Are any methods for inhibiting heterologous encapsidation or transmission by insect vectors universally applicable to all PVCPPIPs Which methods are sufficiently effective and reproducible such that actual measurement of rates to verify rate reduction would be unnecessary? Q15 How technically feasible would it be to measure rates of recombination, heterologous encapsidation, and vector transmission in PVCP PIP transgenic plants in order to show that rates are reduced? Q16 Please comment on how necessary and/ or sufficient each of these conditions is to minimize the potential for novel viral interactions. Please address specifically what combination would be most effective or what conditions could be modified,

added, or deleted to ensure that potential consequences of novel viral interactions in PVCP PIP transgenic plants are minimized. Q16 Conditions

The genetic material of the PVCP PIP is translated and/ or transcribed in the same cells, tissues, and developmental stages naturally infected by every virus from which any segment of a coat protein gene used in the PVCP PIP was derived.

The genetic material of the PVCP PIP contains coat protein genes or segments of coat protein genes from viruses established throughout the regions where the crop is planted in the United States and that naturally infect the crop into which the genes have been inserted.

The PVCP PIP has been modified by a method scientifically documented to minimize recombination, ( e. g., deletion of the 3'

untranslated region of the coat protein gene).

The PVCP PIP has been modified by a method scientifically documented to minimize heterologous encapsidation or vector transmission, or there is minimal potential for heterologous encapsidation because no protein from the introduced PVCP PIP is produced in the transgenic plant or this virus does not participate in heterologous encapsidation in nature. Q17 To what degree and in what ways might a PVCP gene be modified ( e. g., through truncations, deletions, insertions, or point mutations) while still retaining scientific support for the idea that humans have consumed the products of such genes for generations and that such products therefore present no new dietary exposures? Q18 What are the potential adverse effects, if any,

of such modifications on nontarget species ( e. g., wildlife and insects that consume the PVCP PIP)? Q19 To what degree and in what ways might a PVCP gene be modified ( e. g., through truncations, deletions, insertions, or point mutations) before it would be a concern that novel viral interactions due to the modifications could occur because the PVCP gene would be significantly different from any existing in nature? Q20 Would any additional requirements related to PVCP PIP identity and composition ( e. g.,

demonstration that the transgene has been stably inserted) be needed for significant reduction of risks associated with PVCPPIPs Q21 Are there any considerations beyond gene flow, recombination, and heterologous encapsidation as posed in the preceding questions that the Agency should consider in evaluating the risk potential of PVCPPIPs ( e. g., synergy)?


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28025]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12611-005]

Verdant Power, LLC; Notice of Staff Participation in Meeting

    On May 24, 2011, Office of Energy Projects staff will participate
by teleconference in a meeting with Verdant Power and state and federal
agencies to discuss adaptive management strategies for the
environmental monitoring and safeguard plans in licensing the Roosevelt
Island Tidal Energy Project No. 12611.
    For parties wishing to participate, details on the teleconference
are provided below:
    Date: May 24, 2011.
    Time: 2 p.m.
    Call-in Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Meeting ID: 5140.
    Password: 12611.
    For Further Information Contact: Timothy Konnert at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11754 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72902-72904]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1063; Project Identifier AD-2021-01339-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a new
airworthiness limitation is necessary to require periodic replacement
of the oxygen sensor of the nitrogen generation system (NGS). This
proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the new airworthiness
limitation. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 12,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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 Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1063; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1063; Project Identifier
AD-2021-01339-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Chris
Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3552; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a safety issue
related to the reliability of the oxygen sensor of the airplane's NGS.
    The NGS is an onboard inert gas system that reduces the
flammability of the airplane's center fuel tank. The NGS uses an air
separation module (ASM) to separate oxygen and nitrogen from the air.
The ASM uses input from an oxygen sensor. After the ASM separates the
oxygen-enriched air from the nitrogen-enriched air, the NGS returns
nitrogen-enriched air to the fuel tank, and vents the oxygen-enriched
air overboard. These actions reduce the flammability of the fuel tank.
    Boeing discovered that the oxygen sensor's reliability can degrade
over time. Degraded performance by the sensor could result in the ASM
failing to produce nitrogen-enriched air, and the fuel tank becoming
more flammable due to excessive oxygen-enriched air. Such additional
flammability, if coupled with an ignition source in the fuel tank,
could lead to a fuel tank explosion. This proposed AD would require
adding an airworthiness limitation to require periodic replacement of
the oxygen sensor.
    This proposed AD would apply to airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before April 1, 2021, as well as airplanes
with line numbers 7668, 7678, and 7915. Boeing did not start delivering
airplanes with Boeing 737-7/8/8200/9/10 Special

Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A011-9-04, dated
January 2019, which addresses this issue, until after April 1, 2021,
and delivered airplanes with line numbers 7668, 7678, and 7915 with an
earlier revision of that document. The applicability in this proposed
AD is therefore limited to airplanes that were delivered with a version
of Boeing 737-7/8/8200/9/10 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness
Limitations, D626A011-9-04 dated prior to January 2019.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing 737-7/8/8200/9/10 Special Compliance Items/
Airworthiness Limitations, D626A011-9-04, dated January 2019. This
service information describes, among other airworthiness limitations
(AWLs), airworthiness limitation instruction (ALI) AWL No. 47-AWL-09,
``Nitrogen Generation System--Oxygen Sensor,'' for replacing oxygen
sensors. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a new airworthiness
limitation.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (replacements). Compliance
with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that
have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation,
to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for
an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i) of this
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 62 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-1063; Project Identifier AD-
2021-01339-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 12, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and
737-8200 airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before
April 1, 2021.
    (2) Airplanes with line numbers 7668, 7678, and 7915.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by significant changes made to an
airworthiness limitation (AWL) related to the nitrogen generation
system (NGS). The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent increasing the
flammability exposure of the center fuel tank, which together with
an ignition source in the fuel tank, could lead to a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-09,
``Nitrogen Generation System--Oxygen Sensor,'' of Boeing 737-7/8/
8200/9/10 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations,
D626A011-9-04, dated January 2019. The initial compliance time for
the airworthiness limitation instruction (ALI) task is: Within
18,000 flight

hours after the date of issuance of the original airworthiness
certificate or the original export certificate of airworthiness,
within 18,000 flight hours after the most recent replacement was
performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-09, or within 12 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever is latest.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chris Baker,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3552; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on August 19, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25722 Filed 11-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9192-9195]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85262; File No. SR-Phlx-2019-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Option
Floor Procedure Advice A-9 and Phlx Rules 1000 and 1066 and To Adopt a
New Phlx Rule 1078

March 7, 2019.
    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 February 26, 2019, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Option Floor Procedure Advice
(``OFPA'') A-9, titled ``All-or-None Options Orders,'' amend Phlx Rule
1066, titled ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders
Defined,'' and adopt a new Phlx Rule 1078, titled ``All-or-None
Orders.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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: (i) Amend OFPA A-9, titled ``All-or-None
Options Orders''; (ii) amend Phlx Rule 1066, titled ``Certain Types of
Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders Defined''; (iii) adopt new Phlx Rule
1078, titled ``All-or-None Orders;'' and (iv) amend Phlx Rule
1000(b)(14) which described a professional order. Each change will be
discussed in detail below.
Description of an All-or None Order
    Today, Phlx Rule 1066, ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-System)
Orders Defined,'' at paragraph (c)(4) describes an All-or-None Order as
a market or limit order which is to be executed in its entirety or not
at all. OFPA A-9, describes an all-or-none option order as a limit
order which is to be executed in its entirety, or not at all. The
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1066(c)(4) and OFPA A-9 to reference
new Phlx Rule 1078 for the description of an All-or-None Order, thereby
creating a single description of an All-or-None Order for purposes of
the Phlx Rulebook to avoid confusion.
    The Exchange proposes to state within new Rule 1078 that, ``An All-
or-None Order is a limit order or market order that is to be executed
in its entirety or not at all.'' This is the case today, an All-or-None
Order may be either a limit order or market order, as provided for in
Rule 1066(c)(4), although the current description within OFPA A-9
simply states limit order. The Exchange has noted in other rule changes
that an All-or-None Order may be a limit or market order.\3\ The
Exchange further proposes to state within new Rule 1078 that ``All-or-
None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable.'' \4\ Also, the
Exchange proposes to state that ``All-or-None Orders are executed in
price-time priority among all public customer \5\ Orders if the size
contingency can be met.'' Finally, the Exchange proposes to memorialize
that, ``The Acceptable Trade Range protection in Rule 1099(a) is not
applied to All-or-None Orders.'' The Exchange previously noted this
limitation in a rule change.\6\ The Exchange does not offer the
Acceptable Trade Range protection to All-or-None Orders because it is
difficult to apply this feature to an all-or-none because of the
contingency associated with this order type. The Exchange believes that
noting this limitation within new Rule 1078 will add greater
transparency to the order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83141 (May 1, 2018),
83 FR 20123, 20124 at footnote 7 (May 7, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-32).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83141 (May 1, 2018),
83 FR 20123, at 20124 (May 7, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-32). In this
filing the Exchange also noted that an All-or-None Order is a non-
displayed order type.
    \5\ For purposes of this rule change, the term ``public
customer'' shall mean a person or entity that is not a broker or
dealer in securities and is not a professional as defined within
Phlx Rule 1000(b)(14).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69848 (June 25,
2018), 78 FR 39346, 39348 at footnote 4 (July 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, All-or-None Orders are available to public customers \7\ and
professionals.\8\ The Exchange initially offered All-or-None Orders to
professionals in 2010 at the time of the adoption of the new term
``professional.'' \9\ The Exchange

proposes to amend its current practice and offer All-or-None Orders to
public customers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Phlx Rule 1098(b)(v), which states, ``All-or-none
orders--to be executed in its entirety or not at all. These orders
can only be submitted for non-broker-dealer customers.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76742 (December 22, 2015), 80 FR
81393 (December 29, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-49). Within this rule change
footnote 101 provides, among other information, that these orders
can only be submitted for non-broker-dealer customers. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74746 (April 16, 2015), 80 FR
22569 (April 22, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2014-66) (Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 2 and Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Adopt New
Exchange Rule 1081, Solicitation Mechanism, To Introduce a New
Electronic Solicitation Mechanism). Footnote 39 to this rule change
provides, ``All-or-none orders can only be submitted for non-broker
dealer customers.''
    \8\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61802 (March 30,
2010), 75 FR 17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
Relating to Professional Orders) (``Professional Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that permitting only public customers to
utilize All-or-None Orders on the Order Book is consistent with the Act
because unlike other market participants, public customers do not have
access to the same technology as Registered Options Traders,\10\
Specialists,\11\ professionals, firms and broker-dealers. Unlike other
market participants, public customers do not have the tools to monitor
trading activity throughout the trading day and react to changes in
market pricing. Permitting public customers to enter All-or-None Orders
with specific size limitations that rest on the Order Book would
continue to allow public customers the opportunity to obtain fills for
their orders when the market moves even if the All-Or-None Order was
not immediately executable upon entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') includes Streaming
Quote Traders (``SQTs'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs''). A ROT is a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange who has received permission from the
Exchange to trade in options for his own account. An SQT is an ROT
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is
assigned. An SQT may only submit such quotations while such SQT is
physically present on the floor of the Exchange. An SQT may only
trade in a market making capacity in classes of options in which the
SQT is assigned. An RSQT is an ROT that is a member affiliated with
an RSQT with no physical trading floor presence who has received
permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has been
assigned. A qualified RSQT may function as a Remote Specialist upon
Exchange approval. A floor market maker is known as a non-SQT ROT in
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(C). A non-SQT ROT is an ROT who is neither an SQT
nor an RSQT.
    \11\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist. See Phlx Rule 1020(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1000(b)(14)
    At the time the Exchange adopted the term ``professional,'' the
Exchange noted within Rule 1000(b)(14) the manner in which professional
orders would be treated. Specifically, Phlx Rule 1014(b)(14) provides,
``. . . . . [sic] A professional will be treated in the same manner as
an off-floor broker-dealer for purposes of Rules 1014(g) \12\ (except
with respect to All-or-None Orders, which will be treated like customer
orders, except that orders submitted pursuant to Rule 1087 \13\ for the
beneficial account(s) of professionals with an all-or-none designation
will be treated in the same manner as off-floor broker-dealer
orders),1033(e),\14\ 1064, Commentary .02 \15\ (except professional
orders will be considered customer orders subject to facilitation),
1087 and 1098,\16\ as well as OFPA B-6 \17\ and F-5.'' \18\ Further,
the Professional Filing stated,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 1014(g) concerns the allocation of interest on Phlx.
    \13\ Rule 1087 concerns the Price Improvement XL auction.
    \14\ Rule 1033(e) concerns Synthetic Option Orders.
    \15\ Rule 1064 at Commentary .02 concerns the floor Firm
Participation Guarantee.
    \16\ Rule 1098 concerns Complex Orders.
    \17\ OFPA B-6 is titled ``Priority of Options Orders for Equity
Options, Index Options and U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency
Options by Account Type (Equity Option, Index Options and U.S.
dollar-settled foreign currency option only).''
    \18\ OFPA F-5 is titled ``Changes or Corrections to Material
Terms of a Matched Trade.''

`. . . In this regard, the Commission does not believe that the Act
requires that the orders of a public customer or any other market
participant be granted priority. Historically, in developing their
trading and business models, exchanges have adopted rules, with
Commission approval, that grant priority to certain participants
over others, in order to attract order flow or to create more
competitive markets. However, the Act does not entitle any
participant to priority as a right. The requirement of section
6(b)(8) of the Act that the rules of an exchange not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate burden upon competition does not
necessarily mandate that a Professional (as defined in the Phlx
proposal) be granted priority at a time that a broker-dealer is not
granted the same right. The Phlx proposal simply restores the
treatment of persons who would be deemed Professionals to a base
line where no special priority benefits are granted. Thus, the
Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for Phlx to
amend its rules so that Professional orders, like the orders of
broker-dealers, are not granted special priority.' [footnotes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
omitted]

Unlike public customers, professionals conduct business in the same
manner as an off-floor broker-dealer and therefore have the ability to
react to market conditions swiftly when entering orders. The Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 1000(b)(14) to remove the following text, ``. .
. (except with respect to All-or-None Orders, which will be treated
like customer orders, except that orders submitted pursuant to Rule
1087 for the beneficial account(s) of professionals with an all-or-none
designation will be treated in the same manner as off-floor broker-
dealer orders).''
Rule 1066
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Phlx Rule 1066 by deleting the
current description and instead indicating, ``An All-or-None Order is
described in Rule 1078,'' will bring greater consistency to the usage
of the term all-or-none throughout Phlx's Rules.
OFPA A-9
    The Exchange's proposal to amend OPFA A-9 to indicate that this
rule applies to an All-or-None Order submitted on the trading floor
will bring greater transparency to this rule. The Exchange's proposal
to remove the description of an All-or-None Order from this rule and
instead refer to the description in proposed new Rule 1078 will bring
greater consistency to the usage of the term All-or-None Order
throughout Phlx's Rules. The Exchange proposes to remove the sentence
that provides, ``Unlike a fill-or-kill order, an All-or-None Order is
not cancelled if it is not executed as soon as it is represented in the
trading crowd'' because All-or-None Orders are not technically
cancelled in the trading crowd, they are simply not consummated or
withdrawn. The Exchange proposes to add the word ``trading'' before the
word ``crowd'' for clarity. The Exchange proposes to remove the last
paragraph of OFPA A-9 because priority for All-or-None Orders is
described in proposed new Rule 1078 and that rule is proposed to be
referenced within OFPA A-9.
Implementation
    The Exchange would implement the changes proposed herein prior to
May 31, 2019. The Exchange would issue an Options Trader Alert
announcing the exact date of implementation in advance.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Options Trader Alert 2018-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ 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, by more specifically defining an All-or-None Order within the
Exchange's Rules and conforming the term throughout the Phlx rules to
bring greater transparency to this order type. The Exchange
specifically proposes to make clear within new Rule 1078 that All-or-
None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable.\22\ In addition,
indicating that

All-or-None Orders are executed in price-time priority among all public
customer orders if the size contingency can be met will bring greater
clarity to the Exchange's Rules. Finally, memorializing that the
Acceptable Trade Range protection in Rule 1099(a) is not applied to
All-or-None Orders will make clear that this limitation exists. Today,
the Exchange does not offer the Acceptable Trade Range protection to
All-or-None Orders because it is difficult to apply this feature to an
All-or-None Order because of the contingency associated with this order
type.\23\ The Exchange believes that noting this limitation within new
Rule 1078 will add greater transparency to the order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83141 (May 1,
2018), 83 FR 20123, at 20124 (May 7, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-32). In
this filing the Exchange also noted that an All-or-None Order is a
non-displayed order type.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69848 (June 25,
2018), 78 FR 39346, 39348 at footnote 4 (July 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the All-or-None Order type so that
it would only be available to public customers, and not be available
professionals,\24\ is consistent with the Act. Today, public customers
are afforded certain priorities within the Exchange's Rules that are
not offered to other market participants, including professionals.
Today, for example, public customers are offered priority with respect
to the execution of Qualified Contingent Cross Orders. Specifically,
Phlx Rule 1080(o) provides that a Phlx Order Entry Firm effectuating a
trade in the System pursuant to the Regulation NMS QCT Trade Exemption
to Rule 611(a) can cross the options leg of the trade on Phlx as a QCC
Order immediately upon entry and without order exposure if no public
customer orders \25\ exist on the Exchange's order book at the same
price.\26\ In addition, with respect to the Exchange's allocation rule,
public customer [sic] have a different priority as compared to
professionals, as well as all other market participants. Orders are
allocated such that the highest bid and lowest offer shall have
priority, except that public customer orders have priority over non-
public customer, including non-All-or-None professional orders at the
same price, provided the public customer order is executable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Today the All-or-None Order type is available to public
customers and professionals.
    \25\ Phlx will reject a QCC Order that attempts to execute when
any Customer orders are resting on the Exchange limit order book at
the same price.
    \26\ See Phlx Rule 1080(o).
    \27\ If there are two or more public customer orders for the
same options series at the same price, priority shall be afforded to
such public customer orders in the sequence in which an order is
received by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx notes that public customer orders are a source of liquidity in
the market, and exchanges have sought to attract such orders by
providing public customers certain guarantees that their orders would
be executed even in the face of competition from broker-dealers.
Further, providing marketplace advantages to public customer orders
attracts main street retail investor order flow to the Exchange by
leveling the playing field for retail investors over market
professionals and providing competitive pricing.
    Today, the Exchange offers the All-or-None Order type to public
customers to permit the entry of smaller-sized contingency orders.
Professionals, while offered All-or-None Orders, rarely submit such
orders. The Exchange believes that offering All-or-None Orders solely
to public customers is appropriate. Unlike ROTs, Specialists,
professionals, firms and broker-dealers, public customers do not have
access to information and technology that enables them to trade listed
options in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities.
Professionals, for example, have the same technological and
informational advantages as broker-dealers trading for their own
accounts, which enables professional account holders to compete
effectively with broker-dealer orders and market maker quotes for
execution opportunities. ROTs, Specialists, firms and broker-dealers
also have tools and infrastructure which monitor the marketplace in
real-time. These non-public customer market participants have the
ability to react to changes in the market and effectuate trades in a
way that public customers may not have with respect entering
specialized orders that have a size contingency in order to effectuate
a hedge.
    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with fair competition
to offer the All-or-None Order type solely to public customers in order
to permit these main street retail investors to have advantages over
broker-dealers trading on the Phlx. Further, broker dealers cannot use
the All-or-None Order type today. Professionals are treated in the same
manner as a broker dealer for purposes of Exchange rules. The Exchange
believes that Professionals would be aligned with broker dealers with
respect to not being offered the All-or-None Order type.
Rule 1000(b)(14)
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 1000(b)(14) by removing text
related to All-or-None Orders executed by professionals that interact
on the Order Book would align this rule with this proposal.
Rule 1066
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 1066 by deleting the current
description and instead indicating, ``An All-or-None Order is described
in Rule 1078'' will bring greater consistency to the usage of the term
all-or-none throughout Phlx's Rules.
OFPA A-9
    The Exchange's proposal to amend OPFA A-9 to indicate that this
rule applies to an All-or-None Order submitted on the trading floor
will bring greater transparency to this rule. The Exchange's proposal
to remove the description from this rule and instead refer to the
description in Rule 1078 will bring greater consistency to the usage of
the term all-or-none throughout Phlx's Rules. Finally removing language
that is not relevant to the trading floor will bring clarity to the
rule as modified.

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. The Exchange notes that
adopting a new Rule 1078 and memorializing the All-or-None Order type
with greater detail will bring greater transparency to the order type
to the benefit of all market participants.
    Not offering the All-or-None Order type to professionals does not
create an undue burden on competition because unlike professionals,
public customers do not have access to information and technology that
enables them to trade listed options in the same manner as a broker or
dealer in securities. Professionals on the other hand have the same
technological and informational advantages as broker-dealers trading
for their own accounts, which enables professional account holders to
compete effectively with broker-dealer orders and market maker quotes
for execution opportunities. ROTs, Specialists, firms and broker-
dealers all have tools and infrastructure which monitor the marketplace
in real-time. These non-public customer market participants have the
ability to react to changes in the market and effectuate trades in a
way that public customers may not have with respect entering
specialized orders that have a size contingency in order to effectuate
a hedge.

    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with fair competition
to offer the All-or-None Order type solely to public customers in order
to permit these main street retail investors to have advantages over
broker-dealers trading on the Phlx. Also, the Exchange notes that it is
rare for Professionals to utilize the All-or-None Order type. Broker
dealers cannot use the All-or-None Order type today. Professionals are
treated in the same manner as a broker dealer for purposes of Exchange
rules. The Exchange believes that Professionals would be aligned with
broker dealers with respect to not being offered the All-or-None Order
type.
    Further, as compared to all other market participants, public
customer orders are a source of liquidity in the market. Providing
marketplace advantages to public customer orders attracts retail
investor order flow to the Exchange by leveling the playing field for
main street retail investors over market professionals and providing
competitive pricing.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file a proposed rule change at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-2019-03 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-Phlx-2019-03. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be
posted without change. 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-
Phlx-2019-03 and should be submitted on or before April 3, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04559 Filed 3-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43897-43899]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-67478; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Increase
Position and Exercise Limits for EEM Options

July 20, 2012.
    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 July 9, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The 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

    CBOE proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 4.11
(Position Limits) to increase the position and exercise limits for
options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (``EEM'') to
500,000 contracts. The text of the rule proposal is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

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 Exchange began trading options on the iShares MSCI Emerging
Markets Index Fund (``EEM'') on March 9, 2006. Position limits for
exchange-traded fund (``ETFs'') options, such as EEM options, are
determined pursuant to Rule 4.11 and vary according to the number of
outstanding share [sic] and past six-month trading volume of the
underlying stock or ETF. The largest in capitalization and most
frequently traded stocks and ETFs have an option position limit of
250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations,
etc.) on the same side of the market; smaller capitalization stocks and
ETFs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000
contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on
the same side of the market. The current position limit for EEM options
is 250,000 contracts. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to
amend CBOE Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .07 to increase the
position and exercise limits for EEM options to 500,000 contracts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ By virtue of CBOE Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy .02,
which is not being amended by this filing, the exercise limit for
EEM options would be similarly increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is precedent for establishing position limits for options on
actively-traded ETFs and these position limit levels are set forth in
Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 4.11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Position
                Security underlying option                      limit
                                                             (contracts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIAMONDS Trust (DIA)..................................       300,000
The Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts Trust (SPY)...       900,000
The iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (IWM).................       500,000

The PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQQ)..........................       900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange has collected
trading statistics comparing EEM to IWM and SPY. As shown in the
following table, the average daily volume in 2011 for EEM was 65
million shares compared to 64.1 million shares for IWM and 213 million
shares for SPY. The total shares outstanding for EEM are 922.9 million
compared to 192.6 million shares for IWM and 716.1 million shares for
SPY. Further, the fund market cap for EEM is $41.1 billion compared to
$15.5 billion for IWM and $98.3 billion for SPY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2011 ADV (mil.       2011 ADV (option     Shares outstanding      Fund market cap
                              ETF                                      shares)              contracts)              (mil.)                 ($bil)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEM...........................................................                   65                 280,000                 922.9                  41.1
IWM...........................................................                   64.1               662,500                 192.6                  15.5
SPY...........................................................                  213               2,892,000                 716.1                  98.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing position limits for EEM
options will lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment
for EEM options that will benefit customers interested in this product.
    Under the Exchange's proposal, the options reporting requirement
for EEM options would continue unabated. Thus, the Exchange would still
require that each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') or TPH organization
that maintains a position in EEM options on the same side of the
market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report
certain information to the Exchange. This information would include,
but would not be limited to, the option position, whether such position
is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral
used to carry the position, if applicable. Exchange market-makers
(including Designated Primary Market-Makers) would continue to be
exempt from this reporting requirement, as market-maker information can
be accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In
addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that
maintain an aggregate position of 200 or more option contracts would
remain at this level for EEM options.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For reporting requirements, see CBOE Rule 4.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the anniversary of listed options trading approaches its
fortieth year, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance
procedures and reporting requirements at CBOE, other options exchanges,
and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying
unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight
inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission
have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the
manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These
procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated
surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options
and underlying stocks.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These procedures have been effective for the surveillance of
EEM options trading and will continue to be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the
Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\6\ Options positions are
part of any reportable positions and, thus, cannot be legally hidden.
Moreover, the Exchange's requirement that TPHs file reports with the
Exchange for any customer who held aggregate large long or short
positions of any single class for the previous day will continue to
serve as an important part of the Exchange's surveillance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address
concerns that a TPH or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately
large un-hedged position in an option, particularly on EEM. Current
margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of
positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or
capital that a TPH must maintain for a large position held by itself or
by its customer.\7\ In addition, the Commission's net capital rule,
Rule 15c3-1 \8\ under the Act,\9\ imposes a capital charge on TPHs to
the extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Rule 12.3 for a description of margin requirements.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed
rule change will benefit large market makers (which generally have the
greatest potential and actual ability to provide liquidity and depth in
the product), as well as retail traders, investors, and public
customers, by providing them with a more effective trading and hedging
vehicle. In addition, the Exchange believes that the structure of EEM
options and the considerable liquidity of the market for EEM options
diminish the opportunity to manipulate this product and disrupt the
underlying market that a lower position limit may protect against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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 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 self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (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-CBOE-2012-066 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-CBOE-2012-066. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-066 and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18219 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58749]
[FR Doc No: C1-2017-20023]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[USCG-2016-0531]

Vessel Documentation Regulations--Technical Amendments

Correction

    In rule document 2017-20023 beginning on page 43858 in the issue of
Wednesday, September 20, 2017, make the following correction:

Sec.  67.3  [Corrected]

0
In Sec.  67.3, on page 43863, in the third column, in the sixth through
eighth lines, ``redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1)
and (2);'' should read ``redesignate paragraphs (a) through (c) as
paragraphs (1) through (3);''.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-20023 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D