[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47215-47216]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20318]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 20, 2018.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing, Room 10800.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 13, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20318 Filed 9-14-18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28677-28678]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13169]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83444; File No. SR-MRX-2018-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase Certain
Route-Out Fees Set Forth in Section II.A of the Schedule of Fees

June 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 1, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') 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

    The Exchange proposes to a proposal to increase certain route-out
fees set forth in Section II.A of the Schedule of Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase certain
route-out fees set forth in Section II.A of the Schedule of Fees.
Today, the Exchange charges all market participants route-out fees of
$0.96 per contract for orders in Non-Penny Symbols that are routed to
away exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Plan''). The Exchange now proposes to
increase this fee to $1.09 per contract for all market participant
orders in Non-Penny Symbols that are routed to away exchanges in
connection with the Plan. The Exchange believes that the proposed
increase will help offset the costs associated with routing orders
through the Plan, such as paying the transaction fees for such
executions at other exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed increase in the route-out fees
from $0.96 to $1.09 per contract for all market participant orders in
Non-Penny Symbols is reasonable because it is designed to help recoup
costs associated with routing orders to away exchanges in connection
with the Plan, such as paying the transaction fees for such executions
at other exchanges. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed
fees remain competitive with the fees of other options exchanges which,
in addition to a fixed routing fee, assess the actual transaction
fees.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, CBOE C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') charges $1.63
per routed contract for non-public customer, non-C2 market-maker
orders in non-penny classes. See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1.A
(Transaction Fees) and Section 2 (Linkage Routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed increase in the route-out fees
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same route-out fees to all similarly situated members.

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. In particular,

the proposed increase to the route-out fees will apply equally to all
market participant orders that are routed to away exchanges in
connection with the Plan, and will help offset costs associated with
routing orders via the Plan. Furthermore as noted above, the Exchange
believes that its proposed fees remain competitive with another options
exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-19 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-MRX-2018-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-19 and should be submitted on
or before July 11, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13169 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3138-3141]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53101; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Expand the Matching Algorithm Possibilities for Equity
Options To Match Those Available for Index Options

January 11, 2006.
    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 January 9, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange''), 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 CBOE. The
Exchange has filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to expand the matching algorithm
possibilities for equity options to match those available for index
options. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial
and has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative
waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the principal office of the

Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. The text of
the proposed rule change is also set forth below. Proposed new language
is italicized; deletions are in [brackets].

Rule 6.45A. Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE
Hybrid System

* * * * *
    (a) Allocation of Incoming Electronic Orders: [The Exchange shall
apply, for each class of options, the following rules of trading
priority.] The appropriate Exchange procedures committee will determine
to apply, for each class of options, one of the following rules of
trading priority described in paragraphs (i) or (ii). The Exchange will
issue a Regulatory Circular periodically specifying which priority
rules will govern which classes of options any time the appropriate
Exchange committee changes the priority.
    (i) Ultimate Matching Algorithm (``UMA''): No change.
    (A) Priority of Orders in the Electronic Book--No Change.
    (ii) Price-Time or Pro-Rata Priority
    Price-Time Priority: Under this method, resting quotes and orders
in the book are prioritized according to price and time. If there are
two or more quotes or orders at the best price then priority is
afforded among these quotes or orders in the order in which they were
received by the Hybrid System; or
    Pro-Rata Priority: Under this method, resting quotes and orders in
the book are prioritized according to price. If there are two or more
quotes or orders at the best price then trades are allocated
proportionally according to size (in a pro-rata fashion). The
executable quantity is allocated to the nearest whole number, with
fractions \1/2\ or greater rounded up and fractions less than \1/2\
rounded down. If there are two market participants that both are
entitled to an additional \1/2\ contract and there is only one contract
remaining to be distributed, the additional contract will be
distributed to the market participant whose quote or order has time
priority.
    Additional Priority Overlays Applicable to Price-Time or Pro-Rata
Priority Methods
    In addition to the base allocation methodologies set forth above,
the appropriate Exchange procedures committee may determine to apply,
on a class-by-class basis, one or more of the following designated
market participant overlay priorities in a sequence determined by the
appropriate Exchange procedures committee. The

Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular periodically which will
specify which classes of options are subject to these additional
priorities as well as any time the appropriate Exchange procedures
committee changes these priorities.
    (1) Public Customer: When this priority overlay is in effect, the
highest bid and lowest offer shall have priority except that public
customer orders shall have priority over non-public customer orders at
the same price. 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 they are received
by the System, even if the Pro-Rata Priority allocation method is the
chosen allocation method. For purposes of this Rule, a Public Customer
order is an order for an account in which no member, non-member
participant in a joint-venture with a member, or non-member broker-
dealer (including a foreign broker-dealer) has an interest.
    (2) Participation Entitlement: The appropriate Exchange procedures
committee may determine to grant Market-Makers participation
entitlements pursuant to the provisions of Rules 8.87, 8.13, or 8.15B.
In allocating the participation entitlement, all of the following shall
apply:
    (A) To be entitled to their participation entitlement, the Market-
Maker's order and/or quote must be at the best price on the Exchange.
    (B) The Market-Maker may not be allocated a total quantity greater
than the quantity that it is quoting (including orders not part of
quotes) at that price. If Pro-Rata Priority is in effect, and Market-
Maker's allocation of an order pursuant to its participation
entitlement is greater than its percentage share of quotes/orders at
the best price at the time that the participation entitlement is
granted, the Market-Maker shall not receive any further allocation of
that order.
    (C) In establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the
participation entitlement must first be counted against that Market-
Maker's highest priority bids or offers.
    (D) The participation entitlement shall not be in effect unless the
Public Customer priority is in effect in a priority sequence ahead of
the participation entitlement and then the participation entitlement
shall only apply to any remaining balance.
    (3) Market Turner: ``Market Turner'' means a party that was the
first to enter an order or quote at a better price than the previous
best disseminated Exchange price and the order (quote) is continuously
in the market until the particular order (quote) trades. There may be a
Market Turner for each price at which a particular order trades. When
this priority overlay is in effect, the Market Turner has priority at
the highest bid or lowest offer that he established. The Market Turner
priority at a given price remains with the order (quote) once it is
earned. For example, if the market moves in the same direction as the
direction in which the order from the Market Turner moved the market,
and then the market moves back to the Market Turner's original price,
then the Market Turner retains priority at the original price. Market
Turner priority cannot be established until after the opening print
and/or the conclusion of the opening rotation and, once established,
shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the trading session.
    The appropriate Exchange procedures committee may determine, on a
class-by-class basis, to reduce the Market Turner priority to a
percentage of each inbound order that is executable against the Market
Turner. In such cases, the Market Turner may participate in the balance
of an order, pursuant to the allocation procedure in effect, after the
Market Turner priority has been applied. To the extent the Market
Turner order (quote) is not fully exhausted, it shall retain Market
Turner priority for subsequent inbound orders until the conclusion of
the trading session.
    (b) Allocation of Orders Represented in Open Outcry: The allocation
of orders that are represented in open outcry by floor brokers or PAR
Officials shall be as described below in subparagraphs (b)(i) and
(b)(ii). With respect to subparagraph (b)(ii), the floor broker or PAR
Official representing the order shall determine the sequence in which
bids (offers) are made.
    (i) Priority of Orders in the Electronic Book.
    (A) Public Customer Orders: No change.
    (B) Broker-dealer Orders: If pursuant to Rule 7.4(a) the
appropriate FPC determines to allow broker-dealer orders to be placed
in the electronic book, then for purposes of this rule, the cumulative
number of broker-dealer orders in the electronic book at the best price
shall be deemed one ``book market participant'' regardless of the
number of broker-dealer orders in the book. The allocation due the
broker-dealer orders in the electronic book by virtue of their being
deemed a ``book market participant'' shall be in accordance with
paragraph (ii) below and shall be distributed among each broker-dealer
order comprising the ``book market participant'' in accordance with the
Allocation Algorithm formula in effect pursuant to Rule 6.45A(a)
[described in paragraph 6.45A(a)(i)(B)].
    (ii)-(iv) No change.
    (c)-(e) No change.

* * * Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.02 No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.45B Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and
Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System

* * * * *
    (a) No change.
    (b) Allocation of Orders Represented in Open Outcry: The allocation
of orders that are represented in the trading crowd by floor brokers or
PAR Officials shall be as described below in subparagraphs (b)(i) and
(b)(ii). With respect to subparagraph (b)(ii), the floor broker or PAR
Official representing the order shall determine the sequence in which
bids (offers) are made.
    (i) Priority of Orders in the Electronic Book.
    (A) Public Customer Orders: No change.
    (B) Broker-dealer Orders: If pursuant to Rule 7.4(a) the
appropriate Exchange procedures committee determines to allow broker-
dealer orders to be placed in the electronic book, then for purposes of
this rule, the cumulative number of broker-dealer orders in the
electronic book at the best price shall be deemed one ``book market
participant'' regardless of the number of broker-dealer orders in the
book. The allocation due the broker-dealer orders in the electronic
book by virtue of their being deemed a ``book market participant''
shall be in accordance with paragraph (ii) below and shall be
distributed among each broker-dealer order comprising the ``book market
participant'' in accordance with the Allocation Algorithm formula in
effect pursuant to Rule 6.45B(a) [described in paragraph
6.45B(a)(ii)(B)].
    (ii)-(iii) No change.
    (c)-(d) No change.

* * * Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.02 No change.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 6.45A sets forth, among other things, the manner in which
electronic Hybrid trades in equity options are allocated. Paragraph (a)
of CBOE Rule 6.45A essentially governs how orders received
electronically by the Exchange are electronically executed against
interest in the CBOE quote. Paragraph (a) of CBOE Rule 6.45A currently
provides that such electronic trades be allocated pursuant to a
matching algorithm called the Ultimate Matching Algorithm (``UMA'').
CBOE Rule 6.45B establishes the manner in which electronic Hybrid
trades in Index options and options on exchange traded funds (``ETFs'')
are allocated.\6\ Unlike CBOE Rule 6.45A, which is applicable to equity
options (which essentially requires UMA for all electronic Hybrid
equity option trading), CBOE Rule 6.45B provides a ``menu'' of matching
algorithms to choose from for each product traded pursuant to that
rule. That menu includes UMA as well as price-time priority and pro-
rata priority matching scheme (with several optional priority
overlays). The menu format allows the Exchange to utilize different
matching algorithms by product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For details on that rule, see Securities Exchange Release
No. 51822 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35321 (June 17, 2005) (SR-CBOE-
2004-87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to adopt a menu for equity option trading by carrying over the matching
options available under CBOE Rules 6.45B(a) to 6.45A(a). The Exchange
states that this will enable the Exchange to utilize price-time
priority or pro-rata priority (along with the optional market turner
priority,\7\ customer priority, and participation entitlement priority
overlays) for equity option trading. As proposed, these ``new''
matching algorithms are identical to the matching algorithms available
to index and ETF options. Thus, the Exchange states that there are no
new types of matching algorithms being proposed herein, and this
proposed rule change would merely expand the products that can use
these other priority allocation algorithms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For information on market-turner priority, see Securities
Exchange Release No. 52659 (October 24, 2005), 70 FR 62149 (October
28, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed rule change also proposes a minor change to
the open outcry section of the Hybrid trading rules (CBOE Rule 6.45A(b)
for equity options and CBOE Rule 6.45B(b) for index options) to ensure
they are consistent with whichever electronic matching algorithm is in
place pursuant to paragraph (a) of both rules. More specifically,
paragraph (b) of both rules governs how orders represented in open
outcry interact with interest resting in the Hybrid quote. The Exchange
states that broker-dealer orders resting in that quote at the execution
price are deemed one ``book market participant'' for purposes of
determining how many contracts should be allocated to the broker-
dealers' orders collectively. Once that determination has been made,
however, the allocation of those contracts between the broker-dealer
orders is handled systematically. Currently, the rules provide that the
UMA formula is used to systematically distribute the contracts between
those orders (that is because UMA is the only available algorithm for
equity options under CBOE Rule 6.45A). However, the system is
programmed to allocate those contracts between those broker-dealer
orders using whichever matching algorithm is in place for electronic
executions for the subject option class under paragraph (a) of both
rules (which under the ``menu'' structure could be matching algorithms
other than UMA). As proposed, CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) as well as CBOE Rule
6.45B(b) would be modified to reflect that possibility.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is subject to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \11\
because the proposal: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative
prior to 30 days after the date of filing or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the Exchange has given the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBOE has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirements. In
addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative delay. The Commission notes that this proposal would
provide equity option products with a similar menu of priority
allocation methodologies currently available for index option products
(such as price-time, pro-rata, and several optional priority overlays).
Thus, the Commission believes that there is no new regulatory issues
herein such that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. The waiver will
permit the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change without delay
and thereby providing additional priority allocation options to equity
option trading on the Exchange. For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with
the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303

.All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-CBOE-2006-03 and should be submitted on or before February 9, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-519 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION I

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 2, 2006

SUBJ:  Response to Comments Document-Typographical Errors in the Maine Redesignation Request NPR (71 FR 60937, October 17, 2006) Docket Number- EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0226

FROM:  Richard P. Burkhart, Environmental Scientist

	   Air Quality Planning Unit

  TO: 	   Anne E. Arnold, Manager

	   Air Quality Planning Unit

	On October 17, 2006, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register (71 FR 60937, October 17, 2006).  The notice is titled:    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Maine; Redesignation of the Portland, Maine and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for Ozone [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0226; FRL-8231-7].   We received an E-mail from the Maine DEP notifying us of several minor typographical errors in three of the tables from that NPR.  I also received a voice mail from the Ohio EPA on the same issue in one of the tables.

After rereading the NPR and Maine’s submittal, I agree there are minor typographical errors in the NPR proposing approval of both the Portland, ME and Midcoast, ME nonattainment areas redesignation requests.  The typographical errors are in several ozone monitoring concentrations shown in Table 1 (page 60940) and Table 5 (page 60946).  These minor errors do not affect the approvability of the redesignation requests.  The ozone concentrations are correct in the ME SIP submittal (August 3, 2006) and in EPA’s AQS system.  The AQS system is EPA computer storage and retrieval system for air quality data.  The following “revised” tables show the corrected values highlighted in green, and the original tables with the incorrect values highlighted in red.  As stated above, we received an e-mail notification from the State of Maine on the errors in Table 1 and Table 5.  I also received a voice mail from a person in the State of Ohio EPA, on the incorrect values in Table 5.  I called him back and left him a voice mail, thanking him for noticing the error and giving him the correct values. To date, no one else has commented.

Revised Table 1, with corrected values shown in green.

Table 1(revised).  8-hour Ozone (parts per million, ppm) For the Portland Area

Monitor	County	4th High 8-hr ozone average

3-Year

Average

(Design Value)

2003	2004	2005

	Kittery	York	0.080	0.080	0.072	0.077

Kennebunkport	York	0.076	0.076	0.071	0.074

West Buxton	York	0.069	0.075	0.076	0.073

Cape Elizabeth	Cumberland	0.073	0.068	0.073	0.071

Reid State Park	Sagadahoc	0.074	0.069	0.068	0.070

Area Design Value

	0.077

Original Table 1, with red highlights over incorrect numbers

Table 1.  8-hour Ozone (parts per million, ppm) For the Portland Area

Monitor	County	4th High 8-hr ozone average

3-Year

Average

(Design Value)

2003	2004	2005

	Kittery	York	0.080	0.080	0.072	0.077

Kennebunkport	York	0.076	0.076	0.072	0.074

West Buxton	York	0.069	0.075	0.076	0.073

Cape Elizabeth	Cumberland	0.073	0.068	0.073	0.072

Reid State Park	Sagadahoc	0.074	0.069	0.068	0.070

Area Design Value

	0.077

Revised Table 5, with corrected values shown in green highlight.

Table 5(revised).  8-hour Ozone (parts per million, ppm) For the Midcoast Area

Monitor	County	4th High 8-hr ozone average

3-Year

Average

(Design Value)

2003	2004	2005

	Port Clyde	Knox	0.082	0.074	0.075	0.077

McFarland Hill	Hancock	0.080	0.073	0.074	0.075

Cadillac Mountain	Hancock	0.083	0.082	0.083	0.082

Area Design Value

	0.082

Original Table 5, with red highlights over incorrect numbers

Table 5.  8-hour Ozone (parts per million, ppm) For the Midcoast Area

Monitor	County	4th High 8-hr ozone average

3-Year

Average

(Design Value)

2003	2004	2005

	Port Clyde	Knox	0.082	0.074	0.075	0.077

McFarland Hill	Hancock	0.080	0.073	0.074	0.075

Cadillac Mountain	Hancock	0.094	0.088	0.082	0.082

Area Design Value

	0.082

There are also two typographical errors in two emission tables.  Table 3 (page 60944) should have read “2016 VOC” for the next to last column; it is incorrectly labeled as 2016 NOx in the Federal Register. Table 4 (page 60945) should have read “2016 NOx” for the last column it is incorrectly labeled as “2016 Ox” in the Federal Register.  These two errors were caused by someone in Washington reformatting the tables to fit into the Federal Register format. These typographical errors are minor and do not effect the approvability of the notice.  They are mentioned here for thoroughness.  We received an e-mail notification from the State of Maine on the error in Table 3.

Summary

EPA Region I has decided to treat the e-mail from the ME DEP and the voice mail from the Ohio EPA as comments on the record for this action. As explained above, the typographical errors do not change the design values for the two areas, and therefore do not effect EPA’s conclusion with regards to the ozone air quality for the three-year period of 2003-2005 for both areas as meeting the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.   Since these errors are minor and do not change EPA’s conclusions, EPA Region I has decided not to repropose the two Maine Redesignation Requests in the Federal Register, nor publish a correction notice. This memo serves as the response to comments on these typographical errors. This response will also be included in EPA’s final rulemaking on this action.


Walt Stevenson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 04/ 14/ 2006 03: 22 PM To edmond_ toy@ omb. eop. gov cc RobertJ Wayland/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Shrager/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject Edmond You asked for me to ID a few comment letters that discuss the cost impact of the proposed amendments. I suggest yo look at comment letters number 65.1, 73.1, and 98. Also  FYI  we will be emailing you an updated redline copy of the preamble and reg text this afternoon.

Walt