82 FR 8252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 14 (January 24, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 14 (January 24, 2017)
| Page Range | 8252-8255 | |
| FR Document | 2017-01463 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 8252-8255] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-01463] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79808; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule January 17, 2017. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on January 3, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The 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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The Exchange is adding fees for functionality related to its PULSe workstation. The fees herein will be effective on January 3, 2017. By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') may also make workstations available to their customers, which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers and non-TPH broker dealers. Drop Copies Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') language-based connectivity, upon request, provides customers (both TPH and non-TPH) of TPHs that are brokers and PULSe users (``PULSe brokers'') with the ability to receive ``drop-copy'' order fill messages from their PULSe brokers. These fill messages allow customers to update positions, risk calculations and streamline back-office functions. The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee to be assessed on TPHs who are either receiving or sending drop copies via a PULSe workstation. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting drop copy functionality. Whether the drop copy sender or receiver is assessed the fee is dependent upon whether the customer receiving the drop copies is a TPH or non-TPH. If a customer receiving drop copies is a TPH, that TPH customer (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $1000 per month, per PULSe broker from whom it receives drop copies via PULSe. For example, if TPH customer A receives drop copies from each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C (all of which are TPHs), TPH A (the receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of $3000 per month for receiving drop copies via PULSe from PULSe brokers A, B and C (the sending TPHs). If a customer receiving drop copies is a non-TPH, the PULSe broker (the sending TPH) who sends drop copies via PULSe to that customer will be charged a fee of $500 per month. If that PULSe broker sends drop copies via PULSe to multiple non-TPH customers, the PULSe broker will be charged the fee for each customer. For example, if PULSe broker A sends drop copies via its PULSe workstation to each of non-TPH customer A, non-TPH customer B and non-TPH customer C, PULSe broker A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for drop copies it sends via PULSe to non-TPH customers A, B and C (the receiving non- TPHs). Non-PULSe-to-PULSe Routing Upon request, the Exchange provides customers, both TPH and non- TPH, of PULSe brokers with the ability to transmit orders electronically to PULSe brokers' PULSe workstations using order management systems other than PULSe (i.e., non-PULSe-to-PULSe).\3\ These customers utilize the existing infrastructure of such systems to send orders to their PULSe brokers electronically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing is an ``add-on'' feature to drop copy connectivity. If a TPH or non-TPH customer of a PULSe brokers elects to send orders through its third-party order management system to its broker's PULSe workstations, it must also elect to have the drop copy connectivity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange is proposing a monthly fee payable by TPH customers who request non-PULSe-to-PULSe functionality. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of maintaining and supporting non-PULSe-to- PULSe routing functionality. A TPH customer sending orders electronically to PULSe brokers through these non-PULSe systems will be charged a fee of $500 a month per PULSe broker to which the customer sends orders. For example, if TPH customer A transmits orders electronically through a non-PULSe order management terminal to PULSe workstations of each of PULSe broker A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C, TPH customer A (the sending TPH) will be charged a fee of $1500 per month for the ability to send orders electronically to the PULSe workstations of PULSe brokers A, B and C.\4\ The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ In Addition, the TPH customer would be charged $3,000/month for receiving drop copies from the three PULSe brokers, as discussed above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIX Integration Drop Copy Start-Up/Cancellation Fees The Exchange is proposing fees for both the start-up and cancellation of the FIX integration needed to send and receive drop copies from PULSe workstations. The Exchange is proposing a one-time fee of $500 to recoup the costs required to connect a new drop copy customer to workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and add the drop copy functionality for that customer. Additionally, the Exchange is [[Page 8253]] proposing a one-time fee of $500 for cancellation of the drop copy functionality to recoup the costs required to disconnect the cancelling drop copy customer from workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and remove the drop copy functionality for that customer. In the case of both start-up and cancellation, the fees are charged to the TPH who is charged for the drop copy connectivity (in the case of a TPH customer, the TPH customer that receives drop copies from PULSe broker; in the case of a non-TPH customer, the PULSe broker that sends drop copies to the non-TPH customer). If the TPH customer is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each PULSe broker to which the TPH customer requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality, as applicable. If the PULSe broker is charged these fees, each fee is $500 for each non-TPH customer that requests to start or cancel drop copy functionality from that PULSe broker. Routing Intermediary Certification and Inactivity Fees Routing intermediaries route orders entered into PULSe to away markets and to route orders from non-TPH PULSe workstations to TPHs for entry and execution on the Exchange. Routing intermediaries are currently charged routing intermediary transactional fees for away market routing from any PULSe workstation for which it serves as the routing intermediary. The Exchange is proposing a $5000 one-time fee for certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of adding connectivity for the new routing intermediary, including connectivity to away-market routing technology, and testing necessary to support the new order routing features. The Exchange is also proposing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000. The fees currently charged to routing intermediaries allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining, and supporting routing intermediary functionality, including away-market routing technology. If the Exchange is unable to collect sufficient fees in a year from a routing intermediary to cover theses costs, the inactivity fee allows for sufficient recoupment of these costs for that year. The fee will be charged to a routing intermediary each calendar year in which the routing intermediary has been charged Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the aggregate of less than $5000. The inactivity fee will be reduced by the amount of any of these fees charged to the routing intermediary during a calendar year. For example, if a routing intermediary was charged an aggregate of $4500 in Away-Market Routing Intermediary and Exchange Routing fees in the calendar year 2017, that routing intermediary would be assessed a $500 routing intermediary inactivity fee. The routing intermediary inactivity fee may first be charged in the calendar year following the year in which the routing intermediary was charged the routing intermediary certification fee. A TPH that withdraws as a routing intermediary will not be charged an inactivity fee for the calendar year in which they withdrew. OATS Reporting Fees The Exchange is proposing a $250 per month Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'') reporting fee. The fee will be charged to any PULSe customer (TPH or non-TPH) who elects to receive daily transmission of OATS reports for its orders submitted through PULSe. This fee will allow for the recoupment of costs of developing, maintaining and supporting OATS reporting functionality. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ 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 Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that assessing a $1000 per month fee on a TPH receiving drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrade, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure the TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from a PULSe broker. Use of the drop copy functionality by a TPH customer is voluntary. The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee on a TPH sending drop copies from PULSe to a non-TPH customer is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a non-TPH customer receives timely and accurate drop copies. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH sending drop copies to its non-TPH customers. The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly fee of $500, as opposed to the $1000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. Specially, the lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of the drop copy functionality by a non-TPH customer is voluntary. The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 per month fee for a TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality (in addition to receiving drop copies) is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to ensure a reliable connection between a TPH customer and its PULSe broker through which the customer's orders reach the PULSe broker in a timely and accurate manner. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the monthly fee is assessed equally to any TPH electing to use the non-PULSe-to- PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange does not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality. The Exchange believes not assessing a fee for a non-TPH customer electing to use non-PULSe-to- PULSe routing functionality is reasonable, equitable, [[Page 8254]] and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. Use of non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing functionality is voluntary. The Exchange believes that assessing a TPH sending drop copies to a non-TPH a monthly $500, as opposed to the $1000 per month rate assessed to TPH customers receiving drop copies from PULSe, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The lower rates are designed to encourage non-TPH market participants to interact with the Exchange, which will accordingly attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade. The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for FIX integration necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the setup of a new FIX connection to allow the receiving and sending of drop copies via PULSe. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to receive drop copies from PULSe brokers or to any TPH electing to send drop copies to a non-TPH customer. The Exchange believes that assessing a $500 one-time fee for the cancellation of a FIX connection necessary to receive or send drop copies from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs in the shutting down of a FIX connection. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed equally to any TPH electing to cancel a FIX connection to a PULSe broker or to a PULSe broker electing to cancel a connection to a non-TPH customer. The Exchange believes that assessing a $5000 one-time fee for the certification of a new PULSe routing intermediary is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to develop connectivity for the routing intermediary and test the routing functionality to Exchange and away marketplaces. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to every TPH who elects to become a routing intermediary on PULSe. Becoming a routing intermediary is voluntary. The Exchange believes that assessing a routing intermediary inactivity fee of up to $5000 in years in which a routing intermediary pays less than that amount in fees is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to maintain, monitor, upgrade and test routing intermediary connections. The fees are assessed to cover those Exchange costs in the event the costs are not recovered via routing intermediary transaction fees. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will be assessed to any routing intermediary and only to the extent the TPH's routing intermediary transaction fees are less than $5000 in a calendar year. The Exchange believes that assessing a $250 a month fee for the daily transmission of OATS reports from PULSe is reasonable because the Exchange incurs costs to monitor, develop and implement upgrades, maintain and customize PULSe to allow sending and receiving of OATS reports. The Exchange believes the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is assessed to all customers electing to receive daily OATS reports. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed PULSe- related fees relate to optional reports and/or functionality and are assessed equally on PULSe users or TPH electing to use the functionality and/or receive the reports. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed relate to use of an Exchange-provided order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange market participants. 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 The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 CommentsUse the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004 on the subject line. Paper Comments Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004. 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 [[Page 8255]] Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-004 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2017. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-01463 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![8252 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 24, 2017 / Notices
For the Commission, by the Division of A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s TPH customer A, non-TPH customer B
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Statement of the Purpose of, and and non-TPH customer C, PULSe broker
authority.27 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule A (the sending TPH) will be charged a
Eduardo A. Aleman, Change fee of $1500 per month for drop copies
Assistant Secretary. it sends via PULSe to non-TPH
1. Purpose
[FR Doc. 2017–01461 Filed 1–23–17; 8:45 am] customers A, B and C (the receiving
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
The Exchange proposes to amend its non-TPHs).
Fees Schedule. The Exchange is adding
fees for functionality related to its Non-PULSe-to-PULSe Routing
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE PULSe workstation. The fees herein will Upon request, the Exchange provides
COMMISSION be effective on January 3, 2017. customers, both TPH and non-TPH, of
By way of background, the PULSe PULSe brokers with the ability to
[Release No. 34–79808; File No. SR–CBOE– workstation is a front-end order entry
2017–004] transmit orders electronically to PULSe
system designed for use with respect to brokers’ PULSe workstations using
Self-Regulatory Organizations; orders that may be sent to the trading order management systems other than
Chicago Board Options Exchange, systems of the Exchange. Exchange PULSe (i.e., non-PULSe-to-PULSe).3
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Trading Permit Holders (‘‘TPHs’’) may These customers utilize the existing
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed also make workstations available to infrastructure of such systems to send
Rule Change To Amend the Fees their customers, which may include orders to their PULSe brokers
Schedule TPHs, non-broker dealer public electronically.
customers and non-TPH broker dealers. The Exchange is proposing a monthly
January 17, 2017. fee payable by TPH customers who
Drop Copies
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the request non-PULSe-to-PULSe
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Financial Information eXchange
functionality. This fee will allow for the
‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 (‘‘FIX’’) language-based connectivity,
recoupment of costs of maintaining and
notice is hereby given that on January 3, upon request, provides customers (both
supporting non-PULSe-to-PULSe
2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, TPH and non-TPH) of TPHs that are
routing functionality. A TPH customer
Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or brokers and PULSe users (‘‘PULSe
sending orders electronically to PULSe
‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and brokers’’) with the ability to receive
brokers through these non-PULSe
Exchange Commission (the ‘‘drop-copy’’ order fill messages from
systems will be charged a fee of $500 a
‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule their PULSe brokers. These fill messages
month per PULSe broker to which the
change as described in Items I, II, and allow customers to update positions,
customer sends orders. For example, if
III below, which Items have been risk calculations and streamline back-
TPH customer A transmits orders
prepared by the Exchange. The office functions.
electronically through a non-PULSe
Commission is publishing this notice to The Exchange is proposing a monthly
order management terminal to PULSe
solicit comments on the proposed rule fee to be assessed on TPHs who are
workstations of each of PULSe broker A,
change from interested persons. either receiving or sending drop copies
PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker C,
via a PULSe workstation. This fee will
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s TPH customer A (the sending TPH) will
allow for the recoupment of costs of
Statement of the Terms of Substance of be charged a fee of $1500 per month for
maintaining and supporting drop copy
the Proposed Rule Change the ability to send orders electronically
functionality. Whether the drop copy
to the PULSe workstations of PULSe
The text of the proposed rule change sender or receiver is assessed the fee is
brokers A, B and C.4 The Exchange does
is available on the Exchange’s Web site dependent upon whether the customer
not assess any fee, to the PULSe broker
(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/ receiving the drop copies is a TPH or
or otherwise, for a non-TPH customer
CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at non-TPH.
If a customer receiving drop copies is electing to use non-PULSe-to-PULSe
the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, routing functionality.
and at the Commission’s Public a TPH, that TPH customer (the receiving
Reference Room. TPH) will be charged a fee of $1000 per FIX Integration Drop Copy Start-Up/
month, per PULSe broker from whom it Cancellation Fees
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s receives drop copies via PULSe. For
Statement of the Purpose of, and The Exchange is proposing fees for
example, if TPH customer A receives
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule both the start-up and cancellation of the
drop copies from each of PULSe broker
Change FIX integration needed to send and
A, PULSe broker B, and PULSe broker
receive drop copies from PULSe
In its filing with the Commission, the C (all of which are TPHs), TPH A (the
workstations. The Exchange is
Exchange included statements receiving TPH) will be charged a fee of
proposing a one-time fee of $500 to
concerning the purpose of and basis for $3000 per month for receiving drop
recoup the costs required to connect a
the proposed rule change and discussed copies via PULSe from PULSe brokers
new drop copy customer to
any comments it received on the A, B and C (the sending TPHs).
If a customer receiving drop copies is workstations of its PULSe broker(s) and
proposed rule change. The text of these add the drop copy functionality for that
statements may be examined at the a non-TPH, the PULSe broker (the
sending TPH) who sends drop copies customer. Additionally, the Exchange is
places specified in Item IV below. The
via PULSe to that customer will be
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Exchange has prepared summaries, set 3 Non-PULSe-to-PULSe routing is an ‘‘add-on’’
forth in sections A, B, and C below, of charged a fee of $500 per month. If that feature to drop copy connectivity. If a TPH or non-
the most significant aspects of such PULSe broker sends drop copies via TPH customer of a PULSe brokers elects to send
statements. PULSe to multiple non-TPH customers, orders through its third-party order management
the PULSe broker will be charged the system to its broker’s PULSe workstations, it must
also elect to have the drop copy connectivity.
27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). fee for each customer. For example, if 4 In Addition, the TPH customer would be
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). PULSe broker A sends drop copies via charged $3,000/month for receiving drop copies
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. its PULSe workstation to each of non- from the three PULSe brokers, as discussed above.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_8266/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 24, 2017 / Notices 8255
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 60232 to 60323) to prepare an EIS for capitalized or funded at levels necessary
Washington, DC 20549 on official the proposed project to construct and needed to complete the project.
business days between the hours of operate the Lone Star Rail Project, a Due to the request made by the lead
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the regional passenger rail service system State sponsor (TxDOT) and based on the
filing also will be available for along the IH–35 corridor connecting the above information with the UP rail line
inspection and copying at the principal greater Austin and San Antonio alternative no longer feasible, lack of
office of the Exchange. All comments metropolitan areas anticipated to be viability of other reasonable
received will be posted without change; operated by the LSRD. The proposed alternatives, removal of the project from
the Commission does not edit personal EIS was to evaluate the reasonable the CAMPO transportation plan and a
identifying information from corridor alternatives. lack of a capitalized financial plan to
submissions. You should submit only The LSRD conducted numerous move the project forward, the further
information that you wish to make studies and held public meetings to development of the DEIS is not
available publicly. All submissions gather input from the public and other warranted at this time. As a result, the
should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– stakeholders to consider in the above mentioned original Notice of
2017–004 and should be submitted on development of the DEIS. A Notice of Intent is rescinded.
or before February 14, 2017. Availability (NOA) for a DEIS was never The FHWA concurs with the TxDOT
For the Commission, by the Division of published in the Federal Register. In that the information gathered during the
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated October 2016, TxDOT requested LSRD EIS project can be used in future
authority.10 preparation of the EIS be stopped and efforts to determine viable
Eduardo A. Aleman, the Notice of Intent be rescinded. In transportation options for the Austin
Assistant Secretary. January 2017 TxDOT provided San Antonio corridor.
[FR Doc. 2017–01463 Filed 1–23–17; 8:45 am] information supporting their request to (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P rescind the NOI. Program Number 20.205, Highway research,
The request is based on a number of Planning and Construction. The regulations
issues first being the decision by Union implementing Executive Order 12372
Pacific Railroad Company to cancel the regarding intergovernmental consultation on
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal programs and activities apply to this
UP/LSRD agreement for the possible use program.)
Federal Highway Administration MOPAC corridor (the locally preferred
alternative) which renders the alternate Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.
Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To using of UP right of way nonviable. This
Prepare an Environmental Impact Issued on January 13, 2017.
action caused a cascade of additional
Statement: Lone Star Regional Rail actions by other entities. One of which
Michael T. Leary,
Project, Williamson, Travis, Bastrop, was the removal the proposed project Director Planning and Program Development,
Hays, Caldwell, Comal Guadalupe and FHWA, Texas Division.
from the Capital Area Metropolitan
Bexar Counties, State of Texas [FR Doc. 2017–01544 Filed 1–23–17; 8:45 am]
Planning Organization (CAMPO—
Austin MPO) metropolitan BILLING CODE P
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT. transportation plan (MTP) and an
ACTION: Rescind Notice of Intent to ongoing effort to remove the project in
the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Lone Star Rail Organization (AAMPO—San Antonio Federal Railroad Administration
Project in Central Texas. MPO) MTP. As per current
transportation planning regulations 23
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this [Docket Number FRA–2016–0110]
CFR450 the project could not advance to
notice to advise the public that the a NEPA decision without being in both
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the Petition for Waiver of Compliance
MPO’s metropolitan transportation
proposed Lone Star Rail transportation plans. Further, TxDOT analyzed the In accordance with part 211 of Title
project to construct and operate a other remaining initially reasonable 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
regional passenger rail service system alternatives and determined that: this document provides the public
along the IH–35 corridor connecting the notice that by a document dated
greater Austin and San Antonio —the use of I 35 corridor would not be
financial feasible due to ROW November 8, 2016, Nevada Northern
metropolitan areas is rescinded. The Railway Foundation d.b.a. Nevada
Texas Department of Transportation constraints and ongoing I–35
improvements . Northern Railway Museum (NN) has
(TxDOT) will no longer prepare an EIS petitioned the Federal Railroad
for the Lone Star Rail Project. —the use of the State Highway 130
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
corridor as per LSRD 2008 fatal flaw
compliance from certain provisions of
Michael T. Leary, Director of Planning analysis concluded the corridor
the Federal railroad safety regulations
and Program Development, Federal would not support a commuter rail
contained at 49 CFR part 215. FRA
Highway Administration, 300 E. 8th line and ridership and connectivity
assigned the petition Docket Number
Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701, would make the corridor nonviable.
FRA–2016–0110.
by telephone (512)536–5940. —other alternative combinations such Specifically, NN requests waiver from
as I 35 and UP rail line and a hybrid the requirements of 49 CFR 215.303,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
FHWA, in cooperation with the TxDOT option lack viability. Stenciling of restricted cars, and
and the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD), Further with an estimated cost of § 224.101, Reflectorization of Rolling
published a Notice of Intent in the between $2 to $3 billion, funding Stock, for five freight cars. These five
Federal Register on October 6, 2014 anticipated by LSRD such as the State’s freight cars are one caboose (car number
(Document Number 2014–23711, Pages Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund, NN 3) and four box cars (car numbers
Federal Railroad Administration grants NN 2021, NN 1023, NN 1024, and NN
10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). and private investment have not been 1025).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_8266/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-01 15:12:35
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 15:12:35
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 8252 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR