28872 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

1Under section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA, PBGC may 

prescribe reporting requirements for terminated 

multiemployer pension plans, which PBGC 

considers appropriate to protect the interests of 

plan participants and beneficiaries or to prevent 

unreasonable loss to the corporation. 

2Under section 4261(b)(1) of ERISA, PBGC 

provides financial assistance under such conditions 

as the corporation determines are equitable and are 

appropriate to prevent unreasonable loss to the 

corporation with respect to the plan. 

3Section 4008 of ERISA requires the corporation, 

as soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal 

year, to transmit a report to the President and the 

Congress, including financial statements setting 

forth the finances of the corporation at the end of 

the fiscal year and the result of its operations 

(including the source and application of its funds) 

for the fiscal year. 

4As of September 30, 2017, there were 68 

terminated plans not yet receiving financial 

assistance and 72 insolvent plans that received 

financial assistance from PBGC. See PBGC FY 2017 

Annual Report, page 94 at https://www.pbgc.gov/ 

sites/default/files/pbgc-annual-report-2017.pdf. 

Approximately 65 of the plans have 500 or more 

participants. 

• Email: paperwork.comments@

pbgc.gov. Refer to Withdrawal Liability 

Survey in the subject line. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory 

Affairs Division, Office of the General 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20005–4026. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency’s name (Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) 

and refer to the Withdrawal Liability 

Survey. All comments received will be 

posted without change to PBGC’s 

website, www.pbgc.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Copies 

of the collection of information may be 

obtained by writing to Disclosure 

Division, Office of the General Counsel, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 

20005–4026, or calling 202–326–4040 

during normal business hours. TTY 

users may call the Federal relay service 

toll-free at 800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4040. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Duke, Assistant General Counsel 

for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the 

General Counsel, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202– 

326–4400, extension 3839. TTY users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4400, extension 

3839. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When a 

contributing employer withdraws from 

an underfunded multiemployer pension 

plan, the plan sponsor assesses 

withdrawal liability against the 

employer. The plan sponsor is required 

to determine and collect withdrawal 

liability in accordance with section 

4219 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 

The plan sponsor assesses withdrawal 

liability by issuing a notice to an 

employer, including the amount of the 

employer’s liability and a schedule of 

payments. PBGC’s regulation on Notice, 

Collection, and Redetermination of 

Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) 

requires the plan sponsor to file with 

PBGC a certification that notices have 

been provided to employers. 

PBGC is proposing to collect 

information about withdrawal liability 

that is owed by withdrawn employers of 

terminated 1 and insolvent 2

multiemployer pension plans. PBGC 

would distribute a survey that insolvent 

plans receiving financial assistance and 

terminated plans not yet receiving 

financial assistance would be required 

to complete and return to PBGC. 

Smaller plans with less than 500 

participants would not be required to 

complete the survey. PBGC needs the 

information from the survey about 

withdrawal liability payments and 

settlements, and whether employers 

have withdrawn from the plan but have 

not yet been assessed withdrawal 

liability, to estimate with more 

precision PBGC’s multiemployer 

liabilities for purposes of its financial 

statements.3 PBGC would also use the 

information for its Multiemployer 

Pension Insurance Modelling System 

assumptions on collection of 

withdrawal liability. Information 

provided to PBGC would be confidential 

to the extent provided in the Freedom 

of Information Act and the Privacy Act. 

The survey would be sent to 

approximately 65 plans.4 PBGC 

estimates that each survey would 

require approximately 4 hours to 

complete by a combination of pension 

fund office staff (50%) and outside 

attorneys (50%). PBGC estimates an 

hour burden of 130 hours (based on 

pension fund office time). The estimated 

dollar equivalent of this hour burden, 

based on an assumed hourly rate of $75 

for administrative, clerical, and 

supervisory time is $9,750. PBGC 

estimates a cost burden for the 

withdrawal liability survey of $52,000 

(based on 130 attorney hours assuming 

an average hourly rate of $400). PBGC 

further estimates that the average 

burden will be 2 hours of pension fund 

office staff time and $800 per plan. 

PBGC intends to request that OMB 

approve PBGC’s use of this survey for 

three years. An agency may not conduct 

or sponsor, and a person is not required 

to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PBGC is soliciting public comments 

to— 

• Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Issued in Washington, DC 

Hilary Duke, 

Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13330 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

PRESIDIO TRUST 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Presidio Trust Act, and in accordance 

with the Presidio Trust’s bylaws, notice 

is hereby given that a public meeting of 

the Presidio Trust Board of Directors 

will be held commencing 4:30 p.m. on 

July 25, 2018, at the Officers’ Club, 50 

Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San 

Francisco, California. 

The purposes of this meeting are: To 

provide the Board Chair’s report; to 

provide the Chief Executive Officer’s 

report; to receive selected presentations 

of concept proposals for development of 

the Fort Scott site; to receive public 

comment on the selected concept 

proposals for the Fort Scott site; to 

consider and potentially select which 

proposers will be invited to respond to 

a Request for Proposal for the Fort Scott 

site; and to receive public comment on 

other matters pertaining to Trust 

business. 

Individuals requiring special 

accommodation at this meeting, such as 

needing a sign language interpreter, 

should contact Mollie Matull at 415– 

561–5300 prior to July 18, 2018. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28873 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3For example, if a market participant uses a 1 

Gbps Disaster Recovery Port to connect to the 

Disaster Recovery Systems for both Cboe Options 

and EDGX, the market participant would only be 

assessed one monthly fee of $2,000. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

DATES: The meeting will begin at 4:30 

p.m. on July 25, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Officers’ Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, 

Presidio of San Francisco. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy J. Koch, General Counsel, the 

Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, 

P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, 

California 94129–0052, Telephone: 415– 

561–5300. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Nancy J. Koch, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13357 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83453; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2018–041] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change Related to Physical Port 

Fees for Cboe Options 

June 15, 2018, 

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 June 1, 

2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Cboe Options’’) 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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed 

rule change is also available on the 

Exchange’s website (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 for Network Access Ports used for 

Disaster Recovery, effective June 1, 

2018. Currently, the Exchange assesses 

$250 per port, per month for 1 gigabit 

(Gbps) and 10 Gbps Network Access 

Ports that connect to the Exchange’s 

Disaster Recovery Systems in Chicago 

(‘‘Disaster Recovery Ports’’). The 

Exchange proposes to increase its fees 

for Disaster Recovery Ports. Specifically, 

the Exchange proposes to assess a 

monthly fee of $2,000 per 1 Gbps 

Disaster Recovery Port and a monthly 

fee of $6,000 per 10 Gbps Disaster 

Recovery Port. This amount will 

continue to enable the Exchange to 

maintain the Disaster Recovery Ports in 

case they become necessary. The 

Exchange notes that the Disaster 

Recovery Ports may now also be used to 

access the Disaster Recovery Systems for 

the following affiliate exchanges: Cboe 

BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX 

Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, 

Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe BYX 

Exchange, Inc. and Cboe Futures 

Exchange, LLC (‘‘Affiliated Exchanges’’). 

The Exchange proposes to provide that 

market participants will only be 

assessed a single fee for any Disaster 

Recovery Port that also accesses the 

Disaster Recovery Systems for these 

exchanges.3

Lastly, the Exchange notes that the 

Fees Schedule currently provides that 

separate Network Access Port fees are 

assessed for unicast (orders, quotes) and 

multicast (market data) connectivity and 

includes a parenthetical that clarifies 

that ‘‘if a TPH uses the 1 Gbps Disaster 

Recovery Network Access Port for 

unicast and multicast connectivity, the 

TPH will be charged $500 per month’’. 

The exchange notes that certain 

Network Access Ports that connect to 

the Disaster Recovery Systems are able 

to receive both multicast and unicast 

traffic, whereas other Network Access 

Ports can only receive one type of 

connectivity each (thus requiring a 

market participants to maintain two 

ports if that market participant desires 

both types of connectivity). 

Accordingly, market participants are 

currently assessed fees based on 

connectivity (i.e., a TPH is charged two 

port fees regardless of whether it 

receives both unicast and multicast 

connectivity over a single port or each 

type of connectivity over two separate 

ports). The Exchange notes that physical 

ports, including Disaster Recovery Ports, 

at its Affiliated Exchanges allow for 

unicast and multicast connectivity to be 

received through a single port and that 

those Exchanges therefore assess only a 

‘‘per port’’ fee (instead of a ‘‘per 

connectivity type’’ fee). Since market 

participants will be able to use Disaster 

Recovery Ports to access the Disaster 

Recovery Systems of Cboe Options and 

its Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange 

proposes to no longer charge for unicast 

and multicast connectivity separately 

for Disaster Recovery Ports. Therefore, 

the Exchange proposes to eliminate the 

clarification pertaining to Disaster 

Recovery Ports currently in the 

parenthetical in the Notes section. 

Similarly, the Exchange also proposes to 

make clear in the Fees Schedule that if 

a market participant maintains two 

Disaster Recovery Ports of the same size 

in order to receive unicast and multicast 

connectivity (i.e., they cannot receive 

both connectivity types over 1 port), 

then the Exchange will only assess one 

Disaster Recovery Port fee (e.g., if a TPH 

has two 1 Gb Disaster Recovery Ports, 

one of which receives unicast traffic and 

the other of which only receives 

multicast traffic, that TPH will be 

assessed $2,000, instead of $4,000). 

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.4 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 5 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1