[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45196-45200]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78235; File No. SR-C2-2016-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Rules Related to Execution and Priority

July 6, 2016.
    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 29, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to execution and
priority. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 proposed rule change amends C2's execution and priority rules
to more accurately reflect current System functionality and make other
technical and nonsubstantive changes. First, the proposed rule change
amends Rule 6.12(a) to provide the price-time and pro rata priority
algorithms apply to orders and quotes. The current rule text states
these trading priority allocations apply only to orders; however, the
System applies these rules of trading priority to resting orders and
quotes, which is consistent with the Exchange's intention and, the
Exchange believes, Participants' expectations.\5\ Resting quotes may
trade with incoming orders in the same manner as resting orders, and
the proposed rule change merely updates the rule text to explicitly
state this. The proposed rule change also makes nonsubstantive changes
to Rule 6.12(a), including correcting punctuation and using consistent
language in both subparagraphs (1) and (2).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Previous rule filings state these rules of trading priority
apply to the allocation of both resting orders and quotes. See,
e.g., SR-C2-2010-005. Additionally, Rule 6.12(a)(2) states an
additional contract (if contracts cannot be distributed equally
among Participants) will be distributed to the Participant whose
quote or order has time priority, supporting the rule's
applicability to orders and quotes.
    \6\ The proposed rule change similarly amends Rules 6.12(b)(1),
6.12(h), 6.16, 6.18(d), 6.34(d), and 6.51(b)(2)(B) to include
references to quotes in rule provisions that currently only
reference orders but also apply in the same manner to quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(a)(2) to add
detail regarding how the System distributes contracts pursuant to the
pro-rata algorithm and rounds fractions of contracts. Current Rule
6.12(a)(2) states resting orders are prioritized according to price,
and if there are two or more orders at the best price, then trades are
allocated proportionally according to size (in a pro rata fashion).
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 participant whose quote or order has time priority.
This is consistent with System functionality; however, it represents
only one example (a situation in which there are two market
participants and only one remaining contract) rather than a general
rule regarding allocations of contracts that cannot be allocated
proportionally in whole numbers. For example, three market participants
may be entitled to an additional fraction of a contract.
    The proposed rule change amends this provision to state if there
are two or more resting orders or quotes at the best price, then the
System allocates contracts from an incoming order or quote to resting
orders and quotes sequentially in the order in which the System
received them (i.e., according to time) proportionally according to
size (i.e., on a pro rata basis). The System allocates contracts to the
first resting order or quote proportionally according to size (based on
the number of contracts to be allocated and the size of the resting
orders and quotes). Then, the System recalculates the number of
contracts to which each remaining resting order and quote is afforded
proportionally according to size (based on the number of remaining
contracts to be allocated and the size of the remaining resting quotes
and orders) and allocates contracts to the next resting order or quote.
The System repeats this process until it allocates all contracts from
the incoming order or quote. The System rounds fractions \1/2\ or
greater up and fractions less than \1/2\ down prior to each allocation.
This proposed provision is consistent with the current rule that states
contracts are distributed to quotes and orders in time priority. It
adds detail regarding the sequential nature of the allocation process
and applies the provision to situations in which any number of orders
or quotes may be entitled to non-whole numbers of contracts. The
Exchange believes this is a fair, objective process and simple
systematic process to allocate ``extra'' contracts when more than one
market participant may be entitled to those extra contracts

after rounding. The following examples demonstrate this process:
     Example 1: Suppose there are three resting orders at the
same price with sizes of 30 (Order A), 20 (Order B) and 10 (Order C)
(received by the System in that order), and an incoming order with size
of 15 is marketable against those three orders. The System first
allocates 8 contracts to Order A (1/2 of 15 is 7.5, which rounds to 8).
After this allocation, the System allocates 5 of the 7 remaining
contracts to Order B (2/3 of 7 is 4.7, which rounds to 5), and then
allocates the remaining 2 contracts to Order C.
     Example 2: Suppose there are three resting orders at the
same price with sizes of 10 (Order A), 20 (Order B) and 30 (Order C)
(received by the System in that order), and an incoming order with size
of 15 is marketable against those three orders. The System first
allocates 3 contracts to Order A (1/6 of 15 is 2.5, which rounds to 3).
After this allocation, the System allocates 5 of the 12 remaining
contracts to Order B (2/5 of 12 is 4.8, which rounds to 5), and then
allocates the remaining 7 contracts to Order C.
     Example 3: Suppose there are three resting orders A, B and
C (received by the System in that order) at the same price, each with a
size of 50, and an incoming order with size of 100 is marketable
against those three orders. The System first allocates 33 contracts to
Order A (1/3 of 100 is 33.3, which rounds to 33). After this
allocation, the System allocates 34 of the 67 remaining contracts to
Order B (1/2 of 67 is 33.5, which rounds to 34), and then allocates the
remaining 33 contracts to Order C.
    Third, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(a)(3)(B) to delete
subparagraphs (i) through (iv) (as well as the introductory sentence to
those subparagraphs, as it is no longer necessary with the deletion of
the listed items). Currently, subparagraph (B) states when allocating
the participation right of a Preferred Market-Maker (``PMM'') or
Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'') pursuant to Rule 8.13 or
8.19, respectively, the following apply:
     To be entitled to their participation right, a PMM's or
DPM's order and/or quote must be at the best price on the Exchange
(i.e., the Exchange's best bid or offer (``BBO'')).
     a PMM or DPM may not be allocated a total quantity greater
than the quantity that it is quoting (including orders not part of
quotes) at that price.
     in establishing the counterparties to a particular trade,
the PMM's or DPM's participation right must first be counted against
the PMM's or DPM's, as applicable, highest priority bids or offers.
     the participation right shall only apply to any remaining
balance of an order once all higher priorities are satisfied.
    Each of these four conditions must be satisfied in order for a PMM
or DPM to receive a participation right, and that will continue to be
the case. However, the first, second and fourth condition are all
included in Rules 8.13 and 8.19 regarding PMM and DPM participation
rights, respectively.\7\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete
these provisions from Rule 6.12, as they are duplicative, and instead
state a PMM or DPM is entitled to a participation right if it satisfies
the conditions in Rule 8.13 or 8.19, respectively. The Exchange notes
the rule text being deleted states a PMM's or DPM's participation right
is based on its order and/or quote; however, Rules 8.13 and 8.19
provide its participation right is based on its quote. Rules 8.13 and
8.19 are consistent with how the System determines a PMM's or DPM's
entitlement to a participation right, which is consistent with the
Exchange's intention and, the Exchange believes, Participant's
expectations. As PMMs and DPMs having heightened quoting obligations
under Rules 8.13 and 8.17, which make them eligible for the
entitlement, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for the
entitlement to be based on their quotes and not any resting orders they
may also have at the same price. The Exchange believes deleting the
provisions referenced above in Rule 6.12(a)(3)(B) will eliminate any
potential confusion regarding how the System determines a PMM's or
DPM's participation right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rules 8.13(b)(ii), (c)(i), and (c)(ii), respectively,
and 8.19(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) and (b)(1)(C), respectively. Note the
proposed rule change amends Rules 8.13(c)(ii) and 8.19(b)(1)(C) to
provide the participation entitlement is based on the number of
contracts remaining after all higher priority orders have been
satisfied rather than public customer orders. This is consistent
with current Rule 6.12(a)(3)(B)(iv) and System functionality. If the
Exchange has applied public customer priority to a class, those
orders would be filled prior to a PMM or DPM participation
entitlement. However, if the Exchange has applied another priority
to a class at a higher priority than the participation entitlement,
such as market turn priority, those orders at the higher priority
would also be filled prior to a PMM or DPM participation entitlement
consistent with their higher priority status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, subparagraph (iii) states in establishing the
counterparties to a particular trade, the participation entitlement
must first be counted against the PMM's or DPM's, as applicable,
highest priority bids or offers. For a PMM or DPM to receive an
entitlement, it must have a quote at the BBO. A Market-Maker firm may
have multiple individual Market-Makers submitting quotes within a
class. An entitlement will apply to a PMM's or DPM's quotes with
highest priority (i.e., the best price if the price is the BBO) and
will not apply to quotes of the same PMM or DPM firm at a lower price.
The general allocation and priority rules provide contracts are
allocated to quotes with the highest priority, a PMM or DPM must be
quoting at the BBO, and the PMM or DPM may not be allocated a quantity
greater than the quantity of its quote at that price. The Exchange
believes this provision is therefore redundant and proposes to delete
it.
    Fourth, the proposed rule change amends Rules 8.13(c) and
8.19(b)(2) related to the participation rights of PMMs and DPMs.
Currently, Rule 8.13(c) and 8.19(b)(2) each provide that a PMM or DPM
participation entitlement, respectively, is 50% if there is one other
Market-Maker also quoting at the BBO and 40% if there are two or more
Market-Makers also quoting at the BBO. The proposed rule change
provides that each of the PMM and DPM participation entitlement is
based on both the number of Market-Maker quotes and non-public customer
orders (including orders of professionals and voluntary professionals)
\8\ at the BBO.\9\ This is consistent with current System
functionality. Additionally, the current rule considers whether other
Market-Makers are quoting at the best price, because Market-Makers
provide liquidity to C2's market and are encouraged to do so if they
have the opportunity to participate in a larger portion of a trade in
which a PMM or DPM has a participation right. Other Participants
besides Market-Makers provide liquidity to C2's market through orders,
and the Exchange believes those

Participants, like Market-Makers, should have the same opportunity with
respect to non-pubic customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to Rule 1.1, professionals and voluntary
professionals will be treated as broker-dealers for purposes of Rule
8.13 (as well as other rules related to allocation and priority).
The proposed rule change amends the definitions of professional and
voluntary professional in Rule 1.1 to provide that professionals and
voluntary professionals will be treated as broker-dealers for
purposes of Rule 8.19 as well. It was the intent of those
definitions for professionals and voluntary professionals to be
treated as broker-dealers under all rules related to allocation and
priority; the Exchange is adding Rule 8.19 to the list of rules in
those definitions, as it was inadvertently omitted from the list.
    \9\ The proposed rule change makes a corresponding change to
Rule 8.13, Interpretation and Policy .01(b) related to the PMM
participation entitlement with respect to complex orders. The
proposed rule change also amends Rules 8.13(c) and Interpretation
and Policy .01(b) and 8.19(b) to use terms already defined in Rule
1.1 (BBO and Public Customer), as well as to make other
nonsubstantive changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also provides that the participation
entitlement will be the greater of the amount the PMM or DPM, as
applicable, would otherwise receive pursuant to the algorithm
applicable to the class and 40% when there are two or more other
Market-Maker quotes or non-Public Customer orders at the BBO or 50%
when there is only one other Market-maker quote or non-Public Customer
order at the BBO, but no fewer than one contract.\10\ This change is
consistent with current System functionality as well as the intent of
the participation entitlement, which is to provide PMMs and DPMs with a
benefit for their heightened quoting obligations.\11\ The proposed
change providing the participation entitlement may be the amount the
PMM or DPM, as applicable, would otherwise receive pursuant to the
applicable algorithm is appropriate, because the participation
entitlement could harm rather than benefit the PMM or DPM if its quote
was large enough it would, for example, receive 60% of the contract
based on the pro rata algorithm. This encourages PMMs and DPMs to quote
larger sizes, which increases liquidity and ultimately benefits
investors. This proposed change is also consistent with the rules of
other exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed rule change also amends Rule 8.19(b)(2) to
state the DPM participation entitlement will be 30% when there are
three or more other Market-Maker quotes or non-Public Customer
orders at the BBO (and thus amends the previous clause to state the
DPM participation entitlement will be 40% when there are two other
Market-Maker quotes or non-Public Customer orders at the BBO, rather
than two or more). This third level of the participation entitlement
encourages other market participants to quote and is consistent with
the rules of another exchange. See, e.g., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') Rule 8.87(b)(2).
    \11\ See Rules 8.13 and 8.17, respectively.
    \12\ See CBOE Rules 6.45A(a)(i)(C) and 6.45B(a)(ii)(C); and
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') Rule
514(g)(1) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed change stating a PMM or DPM, as
applicable, may receive no fewer than one contract pursuant to the
participation entitlement, because fractions of contracts of less than
\1/2\ are rounded down, as discussed above, a transaction involving a
small number of contracts may result in zero contracts being allocated
to a PMM or DPM who should otherwise have priority. For example, if
there is one contract left after an order trades with a public customer
order, and there is a DPM and two other Market-Makers quoting at the
BBO, 40% of one would give the DPM zero contracts, as 0.4 would round
down to zero.\13\ Thus, this proposed rule change is intended to ensure
that a PMM or DPM would receive a contract in this situation to
continue to encourage PMMs or DPMs to provide liquidity on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The contract would ultimately go to the Market-Maker who
entered its quote first, as discussed above, which may not be the
PMM or DPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to update Rule 6.12(c) regarding the
priority of contingency orders. Currently, Rule 6.12(c) states,
regardless of the allocation method in place, contingency orders
(except elected stop-limit orders and the displayed portion of a
reserve order) are placed last in priority order, regardless of when
they were entered into the System. A contingency order that was entered
before a limit order for the same security at the same price will be
treated as if it were entered after the limit order. If public customer
priority is afforded to a particular security, public customer
contingency orders will have priority over non-public customer
contingency orders but behind all other orders.
    The Exchange proposes to replace that provision to add more detail
regarding the prioritization of contingency orders. Proposed Rule
6.12(c) states once a certain event or trading condition satisfies an
order's contingency, an order is no longer a contingency order and is
treated as a market or limit order (as applicable), prioritized in the
same manner as any other market or limit order based on the time it
enters the book following satisfaction of the contingency (i.e., last
in time priority with respect to other orders and quotes resting in the
book at that time).\14\ If contingencies of multiple orders are
satisfied at the same time, the System sends them to the book in the
order in which the System initially received them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The System generally bases priority of a non-contingency
order on the time the System receives it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, under any algorithm in Rule 6.12
\15\:

    \15\ As provided in current Rule 6.12(a), all displayed orders
at a given price have priority over the non-displayed portion of a
reserve order at the same price. This is also consistent with the
definition of reserve orders in current Rule 6.10(c)(8). The
proposed rule change moves this provision to proposed subparagraph
(c)(1) so all provisions of this rule regarding priority of
contingency orders are included in the same paragraph. The proposed
rule change also adds all-or-none orders to this provision, as those
are also not displayed until their contingencies are triggered,
similar to the non-displayed portions of reserve orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Upon receipt of a reserve order, the System displays in the
book any initially display-eligible portion of the reserve order,
which is prioritized in the same manner as any other order (i.e.,
based on the time the System receives it). Once any non-displayed
portion of a reserve order becomes eligible for display, the System
displays in the book that portion of the order and prioritizes it
based on the time it becomes displayed in the book (i.e., last in
time priority with respect to other orders and quotes resting in the
book at that time).
    (2) Immediate-or-cancel and fill-or-kill orders are not placed
in the book and thus are not prioritized with respect to other
resting orders and quotes in the book (by definition, those types of
orders are cancelled if they do not execute as soon as they are
represented on the Exchange so have no opportunity to rest in the
book). These orders execute against resting orders and quotes in the
book based on the time the System receives them (i.e., the System
processes these orders in the time sequence in which it receives
them).
    (3) all-or-none orders are always last in priority (including
after the undisplayed portions of reserve orders). If the Exchange
applies public customer priority to a class, orders trade in the
following order: (A) Public customer orders other than all-or-none,
(B) non-public customer orders other than all-or-none and quotes,
(C) public customer all-or-none orders (in time sequence), and (D)
non-public customer all-or-none orders (in time sequence). If the
Exchange applies pro-rata with no public customer priority or price-
time to a class, orders trade in the following order: (A) orders
other than all-or-none and quotes, and (B) all-or-none orders (in
time sequence).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Note other priorities may be applied to the class as well
and would function as set forth in the rules.

    The Exchange believes this provision is consistent with the
definitions of these order types, pursuant to which most contingency
orders become market or limit orders once the contingency is satisfied.
All-or-none orders must always be last in priority to ensure that there
is sufficient size to satisfy the condition of such an order to trade
in its entirety after all other orders at the same price have executed.
Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable for orders that
are not displayed in the book to not receive priority over orders that
are displayed, as they are not yet eligible for execution until they
become displayed. These provisions are consistent with current System
functionality and are merely adding more detail to the rules to provide
additional transparency regarding allocation and priority principles
for investors. These provisions are also consistent with the non-
inclusion of all-or-none orders and non-displayed portions of reserve
orders in the NBBO.
    Sixth, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(e) regarding how
modification of an order or quote may change its priority position. The

proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(e)(1) to clarify the provision
applies to changing the price of a quote or order. This is consistent
with the intention of the rule, including the final part of the
provision that indicates priority is determined as if the order/quote
was just received. However, reference in the rule to ``changed side''
(which applies to a quote) but not an order may create confusion for a
market participant, who may mistakenly believe this provision only
applies to quotes. Additionally, the proposed rule change amends Rule
6.12(e)(2) to clarify if the price or quantity of one side of a quote
is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. This is
consistent with the provision in subparagraph (1), which provides
changing the price of a quote only changes the priority position of the
changed side of the quote; the proposed rule change explicitly states
that the unchanged side retains its position. The Exchange believes
these changes will eliminate any potential confusion.
    Finally, the proposed rule change amend Rule 6.12(f) to clarify the
meaning of the provision. Current paragraph (f) states unless expressly
stated otherwise, any potential price improvement resulting from an
execution in the System shall accrue to the party that is removing
liquidity previously posted in the System. Proposed paragraph (f)
states, unless expressly stated otherwise, any potential price
improvement resulting from an execution in the System accrues to the
incoming order or quote that removes liquidity previously posted in the
System. For example, suppose the market for a series is 1.00 to 1.20. A
limit order in that series to buy for 1.25 enters the System. The
System will provide price improvement to that incoming order and
execute the order against the resting offer of 1.20. This is merely a
clarification of the rule text and does not change any System
functionality.
    The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes to Rules
6.12(b)(1), (e) and (h), 6.18(d) and 8.13(c) and Interpretation and
Policy .01, including to fix punctuation and use defined terms, plain
English, and language consistent with that used in similar rule
provisions. In addition, the proposed rule change amends Rule
6.12(b)(1) to provide the Market Turner priority percentage may be
reduced on a class-by-class basis rather than series-by-series basis,
as the Exchange generally makes this determination for an entire class
rather than for specific series.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\17\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change amends execution and
priority rules to more accurately reflect System functionality, which
transparency protects investors and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market. The proposed rule change to provide quotes, in
addition to orders, are subject to price-time and pro rata priority
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, as resting quotes
trade with incoming orders in the same manner as resting orders. The
proposed change regarding how the System rounds the number of contracts
when they cannot be allocated proportionally in whole numbers pursuant
to the pro-rata algorithm adds detail to the rules (which previously
only addressed the situation if there one additional contract for two
market participants) regarding the allocation process and provides a
fair, objective manner for rounding and distribution in all situations
in which the number of contracts many not be allocated proportionally
in whole numbers. Distributing contracts to resting orders and quotes
in time priority when they cannot be allocated proportionally in whole
numbers is also consistent with C2's current rules as well as the rules
of another options exchange.\20\ The Exchange believes adding these
details to the rules, as well as the technical and nonsubstantive
changes to the rules, will better enable investors to understand how
the System allocates trades and affords priority. The proposed rule
change does not change how the System allocates and prioritizes orders
and quotes; thus, orders and quotes will be subject to the same
priority principles as they are today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') Chapter VI, Section
10(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to delete from Rule 6.12 the conditions a
PMM or DPM must satisfy to be entitled to a participation right
eliminates duplication and confusion, a these conditions are also
contained in Rules 8.13 and 8.19, which protects investors. The
proposed rule change providing a PMM's or DPM's participation right is
determined in part by how many Market-Maker quotes and non-public
customer orders are at the BBO is not only consistent with current
System functionality but also encourages all Market-Makers, not just
Trading Permit Holders, to continue to provide liquidity to the market
because it may provide them with the opportunity to participate in a
larger portion of a trade in which a PMM or DPM has a participation
right (60% v. 50%). PMMs, and DPMs will still be entitled to a
significant participation right of 40% or 50%, as applicable, which
continues to provide an appropriate balance with their heightened
quoting obligations. The proposed rule change to provide a DPM's
participation right will be 30% if there are three or more Market-Maker
quotes or non-Public Customer orders at the BBO will further promote
other market participants to participate in a larger portion of a trade
and thus further encourage liquidity from these other market
participants, and is also consistent with the rules of another
exchange.\21\ This additional liquidity will ultimately benefit
investors. The proposed rule change that a PMM or DPM may receive the
amount it would otherwise receive pursuant to the applicable algorithm
if greater than the percentage specified in the rule will ensure PMMs
and DPMs are not harmed by the participation entitlements, which are
intended to be a benefit. This will encourage PMMs and DPMs to quote
larges sizes, which will benefit investors, and is consistent with the
rules of other exchanges.\22\ Similarly, the proposed rule change that
the PMM or DPM participation entitlement may not be fewer than one
contract when there are other Market-Maker quotes or non-Public
Customer orders ensures PMMs and DPMs will receive a benefit

in exchange for their heightened quoting obligations when executions
involve small number of contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CBOE Rule 8.87(b)(2).
    \22\ See CBOE Rules 6.45A(a)(i)(C) and 6.45B(a)(ii)(C); and MIAX
Rule 514(g)(1) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes regarding the priority of contingency
orders, modified orders and quotes, and price improvement to incoming
orders and quotes eliminate potential confusion, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and thus protect investors and the
public interest.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
consistent with how the System currently executes and prioritizes
orders and quotes and primarily adds detail to the rules regarding
current System functionality. Thus, the System will allocate orders and
quotes under the proposed rule change in the same manner as it does
today. The proposed rule change applies in the same manner to the
orders and quotes of all Trading Permit Holders, and the additional
transparency in the rules benefits all investors. The proposed rule
change applies only to the allocation of orders and quotes in C2's
System.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate,

it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \24\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2016-010 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-C2-2016-010. 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-C2-2016-010 and should be
submitted on or before August 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16379 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79060-79062]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26902]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90547; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the
Availability of Information for the iShares Gold Trust and the iShares
Silver Trust Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Commodity-Based Trust
Shares) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust Under Rule 8.203-E
(Commodity Index Trust Shares)

December 2, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 23, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes certain changes regarding the availability of
information for the iShares Gold Trust (formerly the iShares[supreg]
COMEX Gold Trust) and the iShares Silver Trust, shares of which are
currently listed on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E
(Commodity-Based Trust Shares), and the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-
Indexed Trust, shares of which currently are listed and traded on the
Exchange under Rule 8.203-E (Commodity Index Trust Shares). The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.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 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes certain changes regarding the dissemination
of information on the respective websites for the iShares Gold Trust
(formerly the iShares COMEX Gold Trust) \4\ and the iShares Silver
Trust,\5\ shares of which are currently listed on the Exchange under
NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Commodity-Based Trust Shares) and the terms of
the applicable listing rules approved by the Commission, and the S&P
GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust, shares of which currently are listed and
traded on the Exchange under Rule 8.203-E (Commodity Index Trust
Shares) and the terms of the applicable listing rules approved by the
Commission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56041 (July 11,
2007), 72 FR 39114 (July 17, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-43) (Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule
Change to List and Trade Shares of the iShares COMEX Gold Trust)
(``NYSE Arca Gold Order''). The Commission previously approved
listing of iShares COMEX Gold Trust on the American Stock Exchange
LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51058 (January 19,
2005), 70 FR 3749 (January 26, 2005) (SR-Amex-2004-38) (granting
approval to list and trade the Shares on Amex) (``Amex Gold
Order''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50792
(December 3, 2004), 69 FR 71446 (December 9, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-38)
(providing notice of Amex's proposal to list and trade shares of the
Trust) (``Amex Gold Notice''); 63398 (November 30, 2010), 75 FR
76056 (December 7, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-105) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Calculation of Net Asset Value for the iShares Gold Trust). The
following information about Shares of the iShares Gold Trust
currently is required to be available on the iShares Gold Trust's
website pursuant to the Amex Gold Notice, Amex Gold Order and NYSE
Arca Gold Order: (a) The prior business day's NAV per Share; (b)
Basket Gold Amount; (c) the reported Share closing price; (d) the
present day's Indicative Basket Gold Amount; (e) the midpoint of the
bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is
calculated (``Bid-Ask Price''); (f) calculation of the premium or
discount of such price against such NAV; (g) data in chart form
displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of
the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for
each of the four previous calendar quarters; (h) the prospectus; and
(i) other applicable quantitative information, such as expense
ratios, trading volumes, and the total return of the Shares. As
stated in the Amex Gold Notice and the NYSE Arca Gold Order, the
``Basket Gold Amount'' is the corresponding amount of gold, measured
in fine ounces, to be exchanged for an issuance of a basket of
50,000 Shares for the purpose of creating and redeeming the Shares.
Also, as stated in the Amex Gold Notice and the NYSE Arca Gold
Order, the ``Indicative Basket Gold Amount'' is the indicative
amount of gold to be deposited for issuance of the Shares that
Authorized Participants can use. The NAV per Share, Basket Gold
Amount, Indicative Basket Gold Amount and Indicative Trust Value are
available on the Trust's website or through one or more major market
data vendors, as described above, and are not available on the
Exchange's website. In addition, investors can access the gold spot
price and gold futures prices through major market data vendors. The
Indicative Trust Value also is available through one or more major
market data vendors.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58956 (November 14,
2008), 73 FR 71074 (November 24, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-124)
(Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change to List Shares of iShares Silver Trust) (``NYSE
Arca Silver Order''). The Commission previously approved listing of
iShares Silver Trust on the American Stock Exchange LLC. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53521 (March 20, 2006), 71 FR
14967 (March 24, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-72) (``Amex Silver Order'').
The following information about Shares of the iShares Silver Trust
currently is required to be available on the Trust's website
pursuant to the Amex Silver Order and the NYSE Arca Silver Order:
(a) The prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price; (b)
the midpoint of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the
time the NAV is calculated (the ``Bid-Asked Price''); (c)
calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such
NAV; (d) data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of
discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within
appropriate ranges for each of the four (4) previous calendar
quarters; (e) the Basket Silver Amount; (f) the Indicative Basket
Silver Amount; (g) the prospectus; and (h) other applicable
quantitative information. The NAV per Share, Basket Silver Amount,
Indicative Basket Silver Amount and Indicative Trust Value are
available on the Trust's website or through one or more major market
data vendors, as described above, and are not available on the
Exchange's website. In addition, investors can access the silver
spot price and silver futures prices through major market data
vendors. The Indicative Trust Value also is available through one or
more major market data vendors.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56932 (December 7,
2007), 72 FR 71178 (December 14, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-112)
(Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Shares of the iShares S&P
GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust) (``GSCI Order'', '' together with the
Amex Gold Order and Amex Silver Order, the ``Orders''). See also,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54025 (June 21, 2006), 71 FR
36856 (June 28, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-12) (approving, among other
things, the trading of the Shares on NYSE Arca pursuant to unlisted
trading privileges). The Commission previously approved listing of
the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust on the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54013 (June
16, 2006), 71 FR 36372 (June 26, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-17) (approving
listing and trading of the Shares on NYSE). The following
information about Shares of the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed
Trust currently is required to be available on the Trust's website
pursuant to the GSCI Order: (a) The prior business day's NAV on a
per Share basis and the reported closing price; (b) the mid-point of
the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is
calculated (the ``Bid-Ask Price''); (c) calculation of the premium
or discount of such price against such NAV; (d) data in chart form
displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of
the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for
each of the four previous calendar quarters; (e) the prospectus; (f)
the holdings of the Trust, including CERFs, cash and Treasury
securities; (g) the Basket Amount, and (h) other applicable
quantitative information. The Basket Amount is the amount of CERFs
and Short-Term Securities or cash that an Authorized Participant
must deliver in exchange for one Basket.

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

    In the proposed rule changes filed with the Commission by the
Exchange regarding listing and trading of shares (``Shares'') of the
iShares Gold Trust, iShares Silver Trust, and iShares S&P GSCI
Commodity-Indexed Trust (each a ``Trust'' and, collectively, the
``Trusts''), the Exchange described the information available on the
respective Trust's website regarding Trust holdings.\7\ The Exchange
proposes to change certain representations regarding closing price and
midpoint price information to be disseminated on the websites for the
Trusts, as described below. The purpose of this proposed rule change is
to (1) specify that each Trust will disseminate the applicable Official
Closing Price for that Trust's Shares; \8\ and (2) specify that each
Trust will disseminate the midpoint of the national best bid and the
national best offer as of the time the applicable net asset value
(``NAV'') is calculated, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC is the sponsor
(``Sponsor'') of the iShares Gold Trust, the iShares Silver Trust
and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust.
    \8\ The term ``Official Closing Price'' is defined in NYSE Arca
Rule 1.1(ll) as the reference price to determine the closing price
in a security for purposes of Rule 7-E Equities Trading. The
procedures for determining the Official Closing Price are set forth
in Rule 1.1(ll). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82907
(March 20, 2018), 83 FR 12980 (March 26, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-08)
(Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Amend NYSE Arca Rule
1.1(ll)) (``Official Closing Price Approval Order''). See also,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84471 (October 23, 2018), 84 FR
54384 (October 29, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-63) (Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Orders stated that each respective Trust would disseminate the
closing price for the applicable Shares of a Trust. The Exchange
proposes to clarify that the closing price that each Trust disseminates
for a Trust's Shares is the Official Closing Price, which is defined in
NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll).\9\ Such clarification would assist the Exchange
in reviewing compliance with Exchange listing rules applicable to each
Trust. The Trusts currently disseminate the Official Closing Price. The
Exchange believes that such price provides a specific and precise
measure of the price of a Trust's Shares for investors.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 8, supra.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that the term ``official closing price''
satisfies the definition of ``market price'' in Rule 6c-11 under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-1)
applicable to exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') eligible to rely on
Rule 6c-11. Such ETFs are required to disseminate a market price on
their website. See Release Nos. 33-10695; IC-33646; File No. S7-15-
18 (Exchange-Traded Funds) (September 25, 2019), 84 FR 57162
(October 24, 2019) (the ``Rule 6c-11 Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Orders stated that each respective Trust would disseminate the
midpoint of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the
NAV is calculated. \11\ The Trusts currently disseminate the midpoint
of the Exchange bid-ask in relation to NAV. The Exchange proposes to
clarify and make more specific the representation regarding midpoint of
the bid-ask price by stating that a Trust would make available the
price that is the midpoint of the national best bid and national best
offer (``NBBO'') as of the time the NAV is calculated. Such
clarification would assist the Exchange in reviewing compliance with
Exchange listing rules applicable to each Trust. The Exchange believes
that making available the midpoint of the NBBO would continue to help
provide investors and other market participants with complete and
accurate information regarding pricing of a Trust's Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As stated in the Orders and the Amex Gold Notice, the bid-
ask price of Shares of the applicable Trust is determined using the
highest bid and lowest offer as of the time of calculation of the
NAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NYSE Arca Rules 8.201-E and 8.203-E do not expressly require
that a Trust provide website disclosure of its portfolio, the Trusts
currently provide such disclosure and would continue to do so. Other
than changes to information to be disclosed on a Trust's website as
described herein, each of the Trusts would continue to comply with all
other listing requirements set forth in the Orders and in NYSE Arca
Rules 8.201-E and 8.203-E, respectively.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed website disclosure for the
Trusts, together with the portfolio disclosures by the Trusts, would
continue to facilitate effective arbitrage between the market price of
a Trust's Shares and its NAV.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Investors can access each Trust's website at no cost.
Investors also can access, for the iShares Gold Trust, the gold spot
price and gold futures prices, and for the iShares Silver Trust, the
silver spot price and silver futures prices through major market
data vendors. The applicable Indicative Trust Value for each Trust
is available through one or more major market data vendors. The NAV
per Share for each Trust' for the iShares Gold Trust, the Basket
Gold Amount and Indicative Basket Gold Amount; and, for the iShares
Silver Trust, the Basket Silver Amount and Indicative Basket Silver
Amount are available on the applicable Trust's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that an exchange have
rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange proposes to clarify that each Trust will disseminate
for a Trust's Shares the Official Closing Price, which is defined in
NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll).\13\ The Exchange believes that such price
provides a specific and precise measure of the price of a Trust's
Shares for investors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 8, supra.
    \14\ See note 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify and make more specific the
representation regarding midpoint of the bid-ask price by stating that
a Trust would make available the price that is the midpoint of the
national best bid and NBBO as of the time the NAV is calculated.
Consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\15\ such clarification
would assist the Exchange in reviewing compliance with Exchange listing
rules applicable to each Trust. The Exchange believes that making
available the midpoint of the NBBO would continue to help provide
investors and other market participants with complete and accurate
information regarding pricing of a Trust's Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 6(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1)) requires
(among other things) that a national securities exchange be
organized and have the capacity to comply with its own rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would provide enhanced website disclosure for
the Trusts, as described above, to the benefit of investors and the
marketplace.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\19\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest because it would permit the Trusts
to immediately disseminate enhanced price and other information, as
described herein. The Commission notes that other than changes to
information to be disclosed on a Trust's website as described herein,
each of the Trusts would continue to comply with all other listing
requirements set forth in the Orders and the Amex Gold Notice and in
NYSE Arca Rules 8.201-E and 8.203-E, respectively. The Commission
therefore waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-99 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-NYSEArca-2020-99. 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-NYSEArca-2020-99 and should be submitted
on or before December 29, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26902 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24097-24098]
[DOCID:fr01my08-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28255]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

April 25, 2008.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
April, 2008. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at
the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>). An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on May 20,
2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

Dean Family of Funds [File No. 811-7987]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 30, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to Dean Large Cap Value Fund, Dean Small Cap Value Fund, and
Dean International Fund, each a series of Unified Series Trust, based
on net asset value. Expenses of $131,162 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by Unified Fund Services, applicant's
transfer agent, and Dean Investment Associates, applicant's investment
adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 5, 2008, and
amended on April 22, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 2480 Kettering Tower, Dayton, OH 45423.

Templeton Russia/Eurasia Fund [File No. 811-8409]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 4, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33394.

Scudder Intermediate Government & Agency Trust [File No. 811-5539]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 29,
2005, applicant transferred its assets to DWS Strategic Government
Securities Fund (formerly, DWS U.S. Government Securities Fund and
Scudder U.S. Government Securities Fund), based on net asset value.
Expenses of $180,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 10, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606.

Seligman New Technologies Fund II, Inc. [File No. 811-9849]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February
14, 2008 and February 19, 2008, applicant made liquidating
distributions to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses
of $259,300 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by
applicant. Applicant has retained a cash reserve of approximately
$57,449 to cover certain unpaid expenses relating to applicant's
liquidation and dissolution.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 11, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017.

Merrimac Funds [File No. 811-7939]

    Summary: Applicant, a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure,
seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment
company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution
to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $2,358
incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
Applicant has retained $2,260 in cash to pay outstanding accrued
expenses of the same amount.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 28, 2008, and
amended on April 14, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

Dreyfus California Tax Exempt Money Market Fund [File No. 811-4216]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 16, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to General California Municipal Money Market Fund, based on net
asset value. Expenses of $42,390 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by The Dreyfus Corporation, applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 31, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Ave.,
New York, NY 10166.

Merrimac Master Portfolio [File No. 811-7941]

    Summary: Applicant, a master fund in a master-feeder structure,
seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment
company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution
to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $142,095
incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
Applicant has retained $105,682 in cash to pay outstanding accrued
expenses of the same amount.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 28, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

Merrimac Series [File No. 811-8741]

    Summary: Applicant, a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure,
seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment
company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution
to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $115,988
incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
Applicant has retained $80,900 in cash to pay outstanding accrued
expenses of the same amount.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 28, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA
02116.

First Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the
Accumulation of Shares of Vanguard Wellington Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
343]; First Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the
Accumulation of Shares of AMCAP Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-636]; First
Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the
Accumulation of Shares of Fundamental Investors, Inc. [File No. 811-
818]

    Summary: Each applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On or about
June 19, 2001, January 10, 2007, and January 10, 2007, respectively,
each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its unitholders,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $1,313, $679, and $1,158,
respectively, incurred in connection with each liquidation were paid by
First Investors Corporation, applicants' sponsor.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on March 28, 2008.
    Applicants' Address: 110 Wall St., New York, NY 10005.

ACM Managed Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5643]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On August 29,
2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $100,000 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 2, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10105.

Topiary Fund for Benefit Plan Investors (BPI) LLC [File No. 811-21480];
Topiary Master Fund for Benefit Plan Investors (BPI) LLC [File No. 811-
21605]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
September 30, 2007, applicants transferred their assets to Hatteras
Multi-Strategy TEI Fund, L.P. and Hatteras Master Fund, L.P.,
respectively, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$130,000 incurred in connection with each reorganization were paid by
DB Investment Managers, Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on December 26, 2007, and
amended on March 27, 2008.
    Applicants' Address: DB Investment Managers, Inc., 345 Park Ave.,
New York, NY 10154.

AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9160]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 25, 2008, applicant transferred
its assets to AllianceBernstein High Income Fund, Inc. (formerly known
as AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund, Inc.) (``acquiring
fund''), based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $246,800
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant
and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 21, 2008, and
amended on April 2, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10105.

Dreyfus Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund [File No. 811-
6642]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On May 30, 2007, applicant transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of Dreyfus Premier State Municipal
Bond Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of $42,930 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by The Dreyfus
Corporation, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2008.
    Applicant's Address: c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Ave.,
New York, NY 10166.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9538 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88251-88253]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0934]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Turner Cut, Near Stockton, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule and request for comments

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the operating
schedule that governs the draw of the Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald
Island) bridge, mile 2.3, across Turner Cut, near Stockton, CA. This
action is necessary to allow the bridge owner, Reclamation District
2030 (RD2030), to complete design plans and conduct repairs to the
bridge to bring it back to its normal operating status.

DATES: This temporary interim rule is effective from December 21, 2023
through 5 p.m. on September 30, 2024.
    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type the
docket number (USCG-2023-0934) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH''. In the Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related
Material''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary interim rule, call or email Carl Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NOTD Notice of Temporary Deviation
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
Pub. L. Public Law
RD2030 Reclamation District 2030
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under
section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is
impracticable. This bridge is secured closed and will be secured closed
until design plans are finalized, coordination of construction schedule
can be made with landowners and PG&E, contractor hired, and repairs
completed.
    On June 21, 2023, RD2030 notified the Coast Guard that the
Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald Island) retractable span bridge should not
open for the passage of vessels. The cause was the gradual movement
which squeezed the abutments towards the center movable steel section.
The span cannot be opened without the risk of it being stuck in the
open-to-navigation position. The Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald Island)
bridge is the only road in and out of McDonald Island, which includes
farms and a PG&E station and wells. The Coast Guard granted a Notice of
Temporary Deviation (NOTD) from the operating schedule of the bridge,
allowing the span to be secured in the closed position until repairs
can be made. The NOTD will expire at 7 a.m. on December 18, 2023. The
design, coordination of work with affected parties, and repair is
delayed. The retractable span will not be operational at the expiration
of the NOTD. The Coast Guard received the report of these delays on
November 17, 2023. Therefore, there is insufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the modification.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register. For reasons presented above, delaying the
effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest because the retractable span of the bridge is currently
secured closed and cannot be operated until repairs are completed.
    We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard
determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we
will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is modifying the operating
schedule that governs the Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald Island) bridge,
mile 2.3, across Turner Cut, near Stockton, CA. The Zuckerman Brothers
(McDonald Island) bridge has a vertical clearance, in the closed
position, of 16 feet at mean high water and unlimited vertical
clearance when opened.
    The existing drawbridge regulation, 33 CFR 117.5, states that the
draw of the Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald Island) bridge must open for
vessels if a signal is given to do so. RD2030, the bridge owner, has
requested this modification as additional time is required to complete
bridge repairs.
    Drawtender logs from January 2022 through June 2023 indicate the
span opened on average, 2 times in January; 1 time in February; 1 time
in March; 3 times in April; 11 times in May; 8 times in June; 18 times
in July; 6 times in August; 7 times in September; 4 times in October; 2
times in November; and 3 times in December. No complaints have been
received from mariners since the

retractable span was secured closed on June 21, 2023.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule, which permits a temporary
deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Zuckerman
Brothers (McDonald Island) bridge, mile 2.3, across Turner Cut, near
Stockton, CA. This rule allows the bridge to be secured in the closed-
to-navigation position through 5 p.m. on September 30, 2024.
    RD2030 hired an engineering firm as part of the design, planning
and repairs of the bridge. RD2030 and the engineers are working to
finalize the plans for the repairs. RD2030 is also coordinating
construction time windows with landowners on McDonald Island. PG&E is
currently conducting major well rehabilitation on the island and have
limited windows where their access to McDonald Island across the bridge
can be interrupted. These elements contributed to the delay in the
repairs to the retractable span. Currently, the retractable span is
secured closed until repairs are complete. The anticipated completion
of the repairs is September 30, 2024.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this temporary interim rule after considering numerous
statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, it
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that
little or no commercial or recreational vessel traffic will be impacted
by this rule. Furthermore, the retractable span of the bridge, as of
date of the publication of this rule, should not be operated for fear
of becoming non-operational in the partially open position until
repairs can be made.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of
the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  177.T200 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.T200   Turner Cut.

    The draw of the Zuckerman Brothers (McDonald Island) bridge, mile
2.3, near Stockton need not open for the passage of vessels.

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
Andrew M. Sugimoto,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2023-28146 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 275-276]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Application for Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of application for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office

of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described
herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public
notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the
nature of application have been shown in earlier Federal Register
publications, they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of
special permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials,
packaging design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are
described in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers
with the suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications
have been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2015.

    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials, Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2014.
 Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals.

                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Regulation(s)       Nature of special
       Application number          Docket number        Applicant           affected          permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11253-M........................  .................  DPC Industries,    49 CFR 172.101,    To modify the special
                                                     Inc. Houston, TX.  Special            permit to authorize
                                                                        Provision B14;     adding an additional
                                                                        173.315, Notes     cargo tank.
                                                                        4, 24.
12084-M........................  .................  Honeywell          49 CFR 180.209...  To modify the special
                                                     International,                        permit to authorize
                                                     Inc. Morristown,                      an additional
                                                     NJ.                                   hazardous material.
12116-M........................  .................  Proserv UK Ltd     49 CFR 178.36....  To modify the special
                                                     East Tullos                           permit to authorize
                                                     Aberdeen.                             use of a stronger and
                                                                                more corrosion
                                                                                resistant material to
                                                                                be used to
                                                                                manufacture certain
                                                                                parts of the
                                                                                cylinders.
15552-M........................  .................  Poly-Coat          49 CFR 107.503(b)  To modify the special
                                                     Systems, Inc.      and (c),           permit to provide a
                                                     Liverpool, TX.     173.241,           more accurate method
                                                                        173.242, and       of testing for lining
                                                                        173.243.           failure.
15985-M........................  .................  Space Exploration  49 CFR part 172    To modify the special
                                                     Technologies       and 173.           permit to authorize
                                                     Corp. (Space X)                       the transportation of
                                                     Hawthorne, CA.                        hazardous materials
                                                                                by cargo vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-30550 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M