Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2015 / Notices 7515 

4 15 U.S.C. 78f. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

8 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

In connection with the above changes, 

the Exchange further proposes to 

remove related references to Standard 

Options, as the distinction between 

Standard Options and Mini Options is 

no longer necessary with the delisting of 

Mini Options. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the provisions of section 6 of the Act,4

in general, and section 6(b)(4) of the 

Act,5 in particular, in that it is designed 

to provide for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees, and other charges 

among its members and other persons 

using its facilities. 

Specifically, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed rule change is 

reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly 

discriminatory as all Mini Option 

classes have been delisted on the 

Exchange as of the close of business on 

December 17, 2014. The Exchange 

believes that eliminating fees and 

rebates for Mini Options (and removing 

superfluous references to Standard 

Options) will simplify the Schedule of 

Fees and reduce investor confusion as to 

what products trade on the Exchange. 

The Exchange represents that in the 

event it determines to relist Mini 

Options in the future it will first submit 

a proposed rule change to adopt fees 

and rebates applicable to Mini Options. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of 

the Act,6 the Exchange does not believe 

that the proposed rule change will 

impose any burden on intermarket or 

intramarket competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

proposed rule change is intended solely 

to eliminate investor confusion as to the 

products that trade on the Exchange. As 

such, the Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change will have no 

competitive impact. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange has not solicited, and 

does not intend to solicit, comments on 

this proposed rule change. The 

Exchange has not received any 

unsolicited written comments from 

members or other interested parties. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to section 

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,7 and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,8 because it establishes a 

due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE 

Gemini. 

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. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

ISE Gemini–2015–03 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–ISE Gemini–2015–03. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet 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 such 

filing will also 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–ISE 

Gemini–2015–03 and should be 

submitted on or before March 3, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02644 Filed 2–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74200; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2015–010] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

Rules 6.41 and 24.8 

February 4, 2015. 

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 

22, 2015, 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. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

CBOE proposes to add an 

interpretation to each of Rules 6.41 and 

24.8. The text of the proposed rule 

change is provided below. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2015 / Notices 

3Additionally, Rule 6.44 requires that bids and 

offers made on the trading floor be for one option 

contract unless a specific number is expressed in 

the bid or offer. 

4Rules 6.45 (with respect to options that do not 

trade on the Hybrid trading system), 6.45A(b) (with 

respect to equity options that trade on the Hybrid 

trading system), and 6.45B(b) (with respect to index 

and exchange-traded fund options that trade on the 

Hybrid trading system) sets forth the allocation and 

priority rules for orders represented in open outcry. 

Generally, when there are multiple bids (offers) at 

the best price, public customer orders have first 

priority (multiple public customer orders at the 

same price are ranked based on time priority), then 

orders of other market participants are prioritized 

by time (for classes on the Hybrid trading system, 

in-crowd market participants have priority ahead of 

market participants with orders or quotes in the 

electronic book). If the sequence in which bids 

(offers) were made cannot reasonably be 

determined, then priority will be apportioned 

equally. 

5As described above, if the floor broker cannot 

reasonably determine the sequence in which the 

Market-Makers responded, it should apportion the 

order equally. The allocation and priority 

provisions for open outcry trading do not address 

to which market participant the ‘‘extra’’ contract 

should be allocated. See Rules 6.45, 6.45A(b) and 

6.45B(b). Generally, the market participants 

involved in the transaction will agree which one 

should receive the extra contract; ultimately the 

Trading Permit Holder representing the order (in 

this example, the floor broker) reasonably 

determines how to allocate the order in accordance 

with the applicable rule. 

6This process of leg price determination becomes 

far more complicated and time-consuming for 

(additions are in italics; deletions are 

[bracketed]) 

* * * * * 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated Rules 

* * * * * 

Rule 6.41. Meaning of Premium Bids 

and Offers 

(a)–(c) No change. 

. . . Interpretations and Policies: 

.01 When a customer submits to a 

Trading Permit Holder for open outcry 

handling a complex order with a total 

cash price (the ‘‘total order price’’) and 

the total number of contracts for each 

leg, if pricing the legs for execution 

would result in a difference between the 

total execution price and the total order 

price, the Trading Permit Holder must 

resolve the difference in a manner that 

provides price improvement to the 

customer (i.e. the broker must determine 

leg prices that correspond to a total 

purchase (sale) price that is less 

(greater) than the total order price). 

* * * * * 

Rule 24.8. Meaning of Premium Bids 

and Offers 

No change. 

. . . Interpretations and Policies: 

.01 When a customer submits to a 

Trading Permit Holder for open outcry 

handling a complex order with a total 

cash price (the ‘‘total order price’’) and 

the total number of contracts for each 

leg, if pricing the legs for execution 

would result in a difference between the 

total execution price and the total order 

price, the Trading Permit Holder must 

resolve the difference in a manner that 

provides price improvement to the 

customer (i.e. the broker must determine 

leg prices that correspond to a total 

purchase (sale) price that is less 

(greater) than the total order price). 

* * * * * 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is also 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 adopt 

Interpretation and Policy .01 to each of 

Rules 6.41 and 24.8 to describe the 

process of establishing final leg 

execution prices when a broker receives 

from a customer a complex order for 

open-outcry handling at a total cash 

price for the order. Rules 6.41 (with 

respect to equities) and 24.8 (with 

respect to indexes) provide that bids 

and offers must be expressed in terms of 

dollars per unit of the underlying 

security or index, as applicable.3

However, the Exchange understands 

that a customer will sometimes express 

interest in executing a complex order at 

a total cash price for the order (rather 

than at a price per contract for each leg) 

(the ‘‘total order price’’) and the total 

number of contracts of each leg. In this 

situation, the broker may represent the 

order to the trading crowd at the total 

order price, and Trading Permit Holders 

in the trading crowd may respond to 

trade with the order at that total order 

price. Due to the complexity of the order 

and the price and number of contracts 

involved, there may be instances in 

which the complex order may not break 

down into a per-unit price for each leg 

based on the existing market for the leg 

that corresponds to the total order price. 

When this occurs, the broker resolves 

any difference in a manner that provides 

price improvement to the customer (i.e. 

the broker must determine leg prices 

that correspond to a total purchase (sale) 

price that is less (greater) than the total 

order price). The proposed rule change 

codifies in its rules the requirement that 

Trading Permit Holders resolve any 

difference between the total order price 

and total execution price in this 

manner. 

For example, suppose a customer 

sends to its broker a complex order in 

class XYZ to buy 371 July 50 Calls and 

buy 400 July 50 Puts for a total order 

price of $96,920. The market for July 50 

Calls is 1.21–1.22, and the market for 

the July 50 Puts is 1.29–1.30. The floor 

broker represents the order to the 

trading crowd, and two Market-Makers 

respond with a willingness to 

participate in the trade (the floor broker 

is unable to reasonably determine the 

sequence in which the Market-Makers 

responded so determines to apportion 

the order equally).4 They establish a 

per-contract price of 1.21 for the July 50 

Calls and 1.30 for the July 50 Puts. 

Because there is an uneven number of 

July 50 Calls, in splitting up the order, 

one Market-Maker (‘‘Market-Maker A’’) 

agrees to sell 185 July 50 Calls, and the 

other Market-Maker (‘‘Market-Maker B’’) 

agrees to sell 186 July 50 Calls, and 

Market-Makers A and B each agree to 

sell 200 July 50 Puts.5 These market 

participants execute the trade at the leg 

prices set forth above: Market-Maker A 

sells the July 50 Calls for $22,385 ($1.21 

price/share × 100 shares/contract × 185 

contracts = $22,385) and the July 50 

Puts for $26,000 ($1.30 price/share × 

100 shares/contract × 200 contracts = 

$26,000), and Market-Maker B sells the 

July 50 Calls for $22,506 ($1.21 price/

share × 100 shares/contract × 186 

contracts = $22,506) and the July 50 

Puts for $26,000 ($1.30 price/share × 

100 shares/contract × 200 contracts = 

$26,000). Therefore, the customer’s total 

purchase price is $96,891 ($22,385 + 

$22,506 + $26,000 + $26,000), which 

represents price improvement of $29 to 

the customer’s total order price. 

Pursuant to the proposed rule change, 

the broker and Market-Makers could not 

execute the order at, for example, $1.22 

for the July 50 Calls and $1.30 for the 

July 50 Puts, because the total purchase 

price for the customer would be 

$97,262, which is higher than the 

customer’s total order price.6 Brokers 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2015 / Notices 7517 

complex orders with more than two legs or when 

there are more than two responses from Trading 

Permit Holders (which occurs regularly). The 

purpose of this filing is to simplify this process (to 

the potential benefit of customers) so that 

executions of these complex orders can be 

completed more quickly. 

7Complex orders may be executed at a net debit 

or credit price with another Trading Permit Holder 

without giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in 

the individual leg series that are represented in the 

trading crowd or in the public customer limit order 

book provided at least one leg of the order betters 

the corresponding bid (offer) in the public customer 

limit order book by at least one minimum trading 

increment or $0.01, as applicable. The Exchange 

intends to make explicit in its rules in a separate 

rule filing that a complex order (with any number 

of legs and in any ratio) may be represented on the 

Exchange; however only those complex orders that 

satisfy certain requirements (such as ratio 

requirements) are eligible for this complex order 

priority, as well as other special complex order 

treatment under the rules (such as the ability to 

execute complex orders at minimum increments 

different than simple orders). The proposed rule 

change in this filing applies to all complex orders 

(both eligible and noneligible for complex order 

priority and treatment). A complex order must 

continue to satisfy eligibility requirements in the 

rules to receive such priority and treatment 

(complex orders that do not satisfy those eligibility 

requirements do not receive such priority and 

treatment). See Rule 6.42 (minimum increment for 

complex orders) and Rules 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii) and 

6.45B(b)(ii) (complex order priority exception). 

8See id. 

9As set forth above, to be eligible for complex 

order priority in open outcry, one leg would have 

to improve the best public customer price of the 

strategy by $0.01 for the order to receive complex 

order priority. See id. In the initial example above, 

the leg price for the July 50 Puts improved on the 

market, so the July 50 Calls could receive priority 

over all other orders and quotes at the leg execution 

price, which was the best bid. The complex order 

would not have been eligible for complex order 

priority had it executed at leg prices of $1.21 (for 

the July 50 Calls) and $1.29 (for the July 50 Puts). 

The Exchange notes that each strategy must execute 

at least at these prices to receive the priority (in this 

example, all 371 calls and 400 puts must have 

prices of $1.21 or [sic] $1.29 [sic], respectively, or 

better to qualify for complex order priority). The 

Commission notes that the Exchange incorrectly 

noted in the previous sentence that to receive 

priority, the strategy in the example must have 

prices of $1.21 or $1.29. The Exchange clarified in 

an email that the sentence should have stated that 

to receive priority, the strategy must have prices of 

$1.21 and $1.30. See Email to David Hsu, Assistant 

Director, Division of Trading and Markets, 

Commission from Laura Dickman, Senior Attorney, 

CBOE, dated February 2, 2015. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

12 Id. 

may not be able to execute a complex 

order at a customer’s exact total order 

price because the current markets for 

the legs and allocation among Trading 

Permit Holders may not break down in 

such a manner. In addition, brokers 

must exercise due diligence and obtain 

the best price for their customers and 

comply with the Exchange’s rules 

regarding minimum increments and 

complex order priority.7 The Exchange 

believes the proposed rule change 

eliminates any potential confusion in 

the rules regarding how Trading Permit 

Holders in the trading crowd must 

determine the leg execution prices of 

these orders in these situations. 

The proposed rule change does not 

amend the allocation or priority rules 

for open outcry trading.8 For example, 

if a customer submitted an order in class 

XYZ to buy 371 July 50 Calls for $1.21 

and 400 July 50 Puts for $1.30, the order 

would execute in the same manner 

(with respect to allocation and priority) 

as the order originally communicated 

with a total order price in the example 

above. The legs would be required to 

trade in accordance with Exchange 

pricing rules, including the requirement 

to trade at prices at the applicable 

increment for the class that are at or 

better than the Exchange’s best bid or 

offer, and the complex order priority 

rule.9 Similarly, in both situations, the 

order would be allocated to the two 

responding Market-Makers in time 

priority, or apportioned equally if the 

floor broker could not reasonably 

determine the sequence in which the 

Market-Makers responded (as was done 

in the example above). Thus, the 

proposed rule change does not impact 

how complex orders trade in open 

outcry; it only makes explicit in the 

rules that Trading Permit Holders must 

handle orders for which the customer’s 

total order price does not equal the total 

execution price in a manner that 

ensures any price improvement accrues 

to the customer. 

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.10 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 11 requirements that the rules of 

an exchange be designed to 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) 12 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange believes that specifying 

in its rules how Trading Permit Holders 

must handle complex orders submitted 

by customers with a total order price 

rather than individual leg prices 

protects investors and the public 

interest, because it ensures that price 

improvement accrues to the customer. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers 

because, even though the proposed rule 

changes provides customers with 

benefits. The Exchange believes it is 

appropriate to ensure price 

improvement accrues to customers 

because they send orders from off the 

Exchange and are not in a position to 

adjust their prices like the market 

participants on the floor executing the 

orders. In addition, the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the longestablished history in the options 

industry of providing beneficial 

treatment to customers in various 

circumstances (such as providing for 

public customer priority in trade 

allocations) for the purpose of 

encouraging continuing customer 

investment. 

The Exchange notes that the proposed 

rule change does not amend the 

allocation or priority rules for open 

outcry trading, including the complex 

order priority exception. Any orders 

represented to the crowd at a customer’s 

total order price will execute in 

accordance with the Exchange’s current 

allocation and priority rules, and will 

execute in the same manner as order 

represented at individual leg prices. In 

addition, the Exchange notes that orders 

represented to the crowd at a customer’s 

order price must execute at the 

applicable increment for the class (or 

the complex order minimum increment 

if eligible) and in accordance with all 

other pricing rules. The proposed rule 

change merely addresses how brokers 

that receive customer orders with a total 

order price must handle those orders 

and simplifies the process of 

determining the leg prices for such 

order to accelerate the executions of 

complex orders. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

CBOE does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. All brokers 

that receive complex orders from 

customers at a total order price must 

comply with the proposed rule change. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2015 / Notices 

13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 

2 7 U.S.C. 7a–2(c). 

Additionally, these complex orders will 

trade in the same manner as, including 

in accordance with allocation, priority 

and pricing rules applicable to, complex 

orders that brokers receive from 

customers with individual leg prices. 

All complex orders must continue to 

satisfy eligibility requirements in the 

rules to receive complex order priority 

and other complex order treatment. 

While the proposed rule change 

provides customers with benefits, the 

Exchange believes it is appropriate to 

ensure price improvement accrues to 

customers because they send orders 

from off the Exchange and are not in a 

position to adjust their prices like the 

market participants on the floor 

executing the orders. In addition, the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the a long-established history in the 

options industry of providing beneficial 

treatment to customers in various 

circumstances (such as providing for 

public customer priority in trade 

allocations) for the purpose of 

encouraging continuing customer 

investment. CBOE does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on intermarket competition 

because the proposed rule change 

relates to the form in which customer 

orders may be presented to the 

Exchange for execution, not how orders 

may be allocated or prioritized. To the 

extent the proposed change makes 

CBOE a more attractive marketplace for 

customers to submit orders, those 

customers may elect to become CBOE 

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 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the Exchange consents, the Commission 

will: 

A. By order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

B. institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CBOE–2015–010 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–CBOE–2015–010. 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–CBOE– 

2015–010 and should be submitted on 

or before March 3, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.13

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02641 Filed 2–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74204; File No. SR–CFE– 

2015–001] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE 

Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

a Proposed Rule Change Regarding 

Ownership and Control Reports 

February 4, 2015. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on 

January 28, 2015 CBOE Futures 

Exchange, LLC (‘‘CFE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change described in 

Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by CFE. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. CFE 

also has filed this proposed rule change 

with the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’). CFE filed a 

written certification with the CFTC 

under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 2 on January 28, 

2015. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

rule related to reportable positions. The 

scope of this filing is limited solely to 

the application of the rule amendments 

to security futures traded on CFE. The 

only security futures currently traded on 

CFE are traded under Chapter 16 of 

CFE’s Rulebook which is applicable to 

Individual Stock Based and ExchangeTraded Fund Based Volatility Index 

security futures. The text of the 

proposed rule change is attached as 

Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached 

to the publication of this notice. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES