20526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

10 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposal’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73832 

(December 12, 2014), 79 FR 243 (December 18, 

2014) (SR–CBOE–2014–092). 

custody or control, and promote the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions. 

IV. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the Proposed 

Rule Change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and in 

particular with the requirements of 

Section 17A of the Act 9 and the rules 

and regulations thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that 

proposed rule change SR–DTC–2015–01 

be, and hereby is, approved.10

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.11

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08704 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74709; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2015–036] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the Fees 

Schedule 

April 10, 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 March 31, 

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 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

Fees Schedule. 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, effective April 1, 2015. 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

amend its fees for the Russell 2000 

Index (‘‘RUT’’). As of April 1, 2015, 

RUT will be listed exclusively on CBOE 

and C2 Options Exchange Incorporated 

(‘‘C2’’). As such, the Exchange proposes 

to make certain conforming changes to 

its Fees Schedule. 

By way of background, a specific set 

of proprietary products had been 

commonly listed out in the Fees 

Schedule as being included or excluded 

from a variety of programs, qualification 

calculations and transactions fees. In 

lieu of listing out these products in 

various sections of the Fees Schedule, 

the Exchange recently adopted the term 

‘‘Underlying Symbol List A,’’ to 

represent these products.3 Currently, 

Underlying Symbol List A is defined in 

Footnote 34 and represents the 

following proprietary products: OEX, 

XEO, SPX (including SPXw), SPXpm, 

SRO, VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY 

INDEXES and binary options The 

Exchange notes that the reason the 

products in Underlying Symbol List A 

are often collectively included or 

excluded from certain programs, 

qualification calculations and 

transactions fees is because the 

Exchange has expended considerable 

resources developing and maintaining 

its proprietary, exclusively-listed 

products. Similar to the products 

currently represented by ‘‘Underlying 

Symbol List A,’’ RUT will no longer be 

listed on any other exchange (other than 

C2). As such, the Exchange proposes to 

exclude or include RUT in the same 

programs as the other products in 

Underlying Symbol List A (except as 

otherwise noted below), as well as add 

RUT to the definition of Underlying 

Symbol List A in Footnote 34. 

Specifically, like the other products in 

Underlying Symbol List A, the 

Exchange proposes to except RUT from 

the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the 

Marketing Fee, the Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder Fee Cap (‘‘Fee Cap’’) and 

exemption from fees for facilitation 

orders, and the Order Router Subsidy 

(ORS) and Complex Order Router 

Subsidy (CORS) Programs. Like all other 

products in Underlying Symbol List A 

(with the exception of SROs), the 

Exchange proposes to apply to RUT the 

CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale. Unlike the products in 

Underlying Symbol List A, the 

Exchange does intend to keep RUT 

volume in the calculation of qualifying 

volume for the rebate of Floor Broker 

Trading Permit fees. 

Next, as the Exchange proposes to 

include RUT in Underlying Symbol List 

A, the reference to RUT in the ‘‘Index 

Options Rate Table—All Index Products 

Excluding Underlying Symbol List A’’ 

table will be deleted and new references 

to RUT, where applicable, will be added 

to the ‘‘Specified Proprietary Index 

Options Rate Table—Underlying 

Symbol List A’’ table. Additionally, the 

Exchange will add ‘‘RUT’’ to the list of 

products excluded from the Customer 

section of the Index Options Rate Table. 

The Exchange also proposes to spell out 

and add a separate row for the 

remaining products of Underlying 

Symbol List A for Broker-Dealers, NonTrading Permit Holder Market-Makers, 

Professionals/Voluntary Professionals 

and Joint Back Offices (‘‘JBOs’’) 

transaction fees. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

certain transaction fees for RUT options. 

Currently, Clearing Trading Permit 

Holder proprietary (‘‘F’’ origin code) 

and Non-Trading Permit Holder 

Affiliate (‘‘L’’ origin code) RUT 

transactions are assessed $0.35 per 

contract for electronic transactions and 

$0.20 per contract for both manual and 

Automated Improvement Mechanism 

(‘‘AIM’’) transactions. The Exchange 

proposes to assess a $0.25 per contract 

transaction fee for all Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder and Non-Trading Permit 

Holder Affiliate transactions, which is 

the same fee amount assessed to 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 20527 

4The $0.25 per contract fee for Clearing Trading 

Permit Holders and Non-Trading Permit Holder 

Affiliates is subject to the applicability of the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. 

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

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

8See CBOE Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary 

Index Options Rate Table. 

proprietary and Non-Trading Permit 

Holder Affiliate transactions for all 

products in Underlying Symbol List A.4

Next, the Exchange notes that currently, 

RUT is subject to the Liquidity Provider 

Sliding Scale, which provides for 

reduced transaction fees for MarketMakers that reach certain volume 

thresholds in all underlying symbols 

excluding Underlying Symbol List A 

and mini-options. As mentioned above, 

the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will 

no longer apply to RUT as RUT will 

now be exclusively listed on CBOE (and 

C2) and part of Underlying Symbol List 

A. As such, the Exchange proposes to 

assess Market-Makers $0.20 per contract 

for all RUT transactions, which is also 

the same fee amount as applies to 

Market-Makers for all products in 

Underlying Symbol List A. 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

the AIM transaction RUT fees for 

Broker-Dealers, Non-Trading Permit 

Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/

Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back 

Offices (‘‘JBOs’’). Currently, the 

Exchange assesses these market 

participants $0.20 per contract for AIM 

Agency/Primary transactions and $0.05 

per contract for AIM Contra 

transactions. The Exchange proposes to 

charge all RUT AIM transactions $0.25 

per contract. The current fees of $0.65 

per contract for Broker-Dealer, NonTrading Permit Holder Market-Maker, 

and JBO electronic RUT transactions 

and $0.25 per contract for manual 

transactions are not changing. Currently, 

Customer transactions are assessed 

$0.18 per contract for all RUT orders 

other than AIM Contra orders. AIM 

Contra transactions are currently 

assessed $0.05 per contract. The 

Exchange proposes to increase the AIM 

Contra fee to $0.18 per contract, so that 

all Customer transactions will be 

assessed the same rate (i.e., $0.18). The 

Exchange notes that Customer AIM 

orders (both AIM Agency/Primary and 

Contra) for other Underlying Symbol 

List A products are also charged the 

same amount(s) as apply to Customer 

non-AIM transactions for each 

respective product. 

The Exchange also proposes to apply 

to RUT, like the other products in 

Underlying Symbol List A, the Floor 

Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract 

($0.02 per contract for crossed orders) 

(the Floor Brokerage Fee applies only to 

Floor Brokers, and only for open outcry 

trading). 

Currently, the Exchange assesses an 

Index License Surcharge for RUT of 

$0.30 per contract for all non-customer 

orders. The Exchange now proposes to 

increase the RUT Surcharge from $0.30 

to 0.45 per contract in order to recoup 

the increased costs associated with the 

RUT license. The Exchange will still be 

subsidizing the costs of the RUT license. 

Footnote 25, which governs rebates on 

Floor Broker Trading Permits, currently 

provides that any Floor Broker that 

executes a certain average of customer 

open-outcry contracts per day over the 

course of a calendar month in all 

underlying symbols excluding 

Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, XSP, 

XSPAM, mini-options and subcabinet 

trades, will receive a rebate on that 

Floor Broker’s Trading Permit Holder’s 

Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees. The 

Exchange notes that although RUT is 

being added to ‘‘Underlying Symbol List 

A’’, it wishes to continue to include 

RUT in the calculation of the qualifying 

volume for the rebate of Floor Broker 

Trading Permit fees. As such, the 

Exchange seeks to explicitly note in 

Footnote 25 that RUT will be included 

in the calculation, notwithstanding its 

inclusion in Underlying Symbol List A. 

The Exchange wishes to continue to 

encourage Floor Brokers to execute 

open-outcry trades in RUT options and 

believes that continuing to include RUT 

in the qualifying volume will provide 

such incentive. Additionally, the 

Exchange notes that as discussed above, 

Floor Brokers will now be assessed floor 

brokerage fees for RUT, which had not 

been assessed to them previously. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 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 facilitation 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. 

Particularly, the Exchange believes it 

is reasonable to charge different fee 

amounts to different user types in the 

manner proposed because the proposed 

fees are consistent with the price 

differentiation that exists today for other 

proprietary products. The Exchange also 

believes that the proposed fee amounts 

for RUT orders are reasonable because 

the proposed fee amounts are within the 

range of amounts assessed for the 

Exchange’s other proprietary products.8

The Exchange believes that it is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess lower fees to 

Customers as compared to other market 

participants because Customer order 

flow enhances liquidity on the 

Exchange for the benefit of all market 

participants. Specifically, Customer 

liquidity benefits all market participants 

by providing more trading 

opportunities, which attracts MarketMakers. An increase in the activity of 

these market participants in turn 

facilitates tighter spreads, which may 

cause an additional corresponding 

increase in order flow from other market 

participants. The fees offered to 

Customers are intended to attract more 

Customer trading volume to the 

Exchange. Moreover, the options 

industry has a long history of providing 

preferential pricing to Customers, and 

the Exchange’s current Fees Schedule 

currently does so in many places, as do 

the fees structures of many other 

exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts 

listed as applying to Customers will be 

applied equally to all Customers 

(meaning that all Customers will be 

assessed the same amount). 

The Exchange believes that it is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to, assess lower fees to 

Market-Makers as compared to other 

market participants other than 

Customers because Market-Makers, 

unlike other market participants, take 

on a number of obligations, including 

quoting obligations, that other market 

participants do not have. Further, these 

lower fees offered to Market-Makers are 

intended to incent Market-Makers to 

quote and trade more on the Exchange, 

thereby providing more trading 

opportunities for all market 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

9 Id. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

participants. Additionally, the proposed 

fee for Market-Makers will be applied 

equally to all Market-Makers (meaning 

that all Market-Makers will be assessed 

the same amount). This concept also 

applies to orders from all other origins. 

It should also be noted that all fee 

amounts described herein are intended 

to attract greater order flow to the 

Exchange in RUT, which should 

therefore serve to benefit all Exchange 

market participants. Similarly, it is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess lower fees to 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder 

Proprietary orders than those of other 

market participants (except Customers 

and Market-Makers) because Clearing 

Trading Permit Holders also have a 

number of obligations (such as 

membership with the Options Clearing 

Corporation), significant regulatory 

burdens, and financial obligations, that 

other market participants do not need to 

take on. The Exchange also notes that 

the RUT fee amounts for each separate 

type of market participant will be 

assessed equally to all such market 

participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer 

orders will be assessed the same 

amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will 

be assessed the same amount, etc.). 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

changes to AIM transaction fees for 

Brokers Dealers, Non-Trading Permit 

Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/

Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and 

Customers are reasonable because the 

amounts are still lower than assessed for 

AIM transactions in other proprietary 

products.9 The Exchange believes it’s 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to assess lower fees for 

AIM executions as compared to 

electronic executions because AIM is a 

price-improvement mechanism, which 

the Exchange wishes to encourage and 

support. 

Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of 

$0.04 per contract for non-crossed 

orders and $0.02 per contract for 

crossed orders to Floor Brokers (and not 

other market participants) trading RUT 

orders is equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because only Floor 

Brokers are statutorily capable of 

representing orders in the trading 

crowd, for which they charge a 

commission. Moreover, this fee is 

already assessed, in the same amounts, 

to the other products in Underlying 

Symbol List A. 

Increasing the Index License 

Surcharge Fee from $0.30 to $0.45 per 

contract to RUT transactions is 

reasonable because the Exchange still 

pays more for the RUT license than the 

amount of the proposed RUT Index 

License Surcharge Fee (meaning that the 

Exchange will be subsidizing the costs 

of the RUT license). This increase is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory because the increased 

amount will be assessed to all market 

participants to whom the RUT 

Surcharge applies. Not applying the 

RUT Index License Surcharge Fee to 

Customer orders is equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory because this is 

designed to attract Customer RUT 

orders, which increases liquidity and 

provides greater trading opportunities to 

all market participants. 

Excepting RUT from the Liquidity 

Provider Sliding Scale, the Marketing 

Fee, the Fee Cap, and the exemption 

from fees for facilitation orders is 

reasonable because other Underlying 

Symbol List A products (i.e., other 

products that are exclusively-listed) are 

excepted from those same items. This is 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory for the same reason; it 

seems equitable to except RUT from 

items on the Fees Schedule from which 

other proprietary products are also 

excepted. 

Applying to RUT the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is 

reasonable because it also applies to 

other Underlying Symbol List A 

products. This is equitable and not 

unfairly discriminatory for the same 

reason; it seems equitable to apply to 

RUT the same items on the Fees 

Schedule that apply to Underlying 

Symbol List A options classes (i.e., 

proprietary options classes that are not 

listed on other exchanges). 

The Exchange believes it’s reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to continue to include 

RUT in the calculation of the qualifying 

volume for the Floor Broker Trading 

Permit Fees rebate because the 

Exchange wishes to support and 

encourage open-outcry trading of RUT, 

which allows for price improvement 

and has a number of positive impacts on 

the market system. 

Finally, the Exchange believes the 

proposed change to relocate the RUT 

fees from the ‘‘Index Options Rate 

Table- All Index Products Excluding 

Underlying Symbol List A’’ to the 

‘‘Specified Proprietary Index Options 

Rate Table- Underlying Symbol List A’’ 

and make other technical conforming 

changes to the Fees Schedule makes 

clear to market participants that RUT is 

now part of Underlying Symbol List A 

and reduces potential confusion as to 

which Rate Table applies. The 

alleviation of potential confusion will 

remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, and, in 

general, protect investors and the public 

interest. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule changes will impose 

any burden 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, while different fees are 

assessed to different market participants 

in some circumstances, these different 

market participants have different 

obligations and different circumstances 

as discussed above. For example, 

Market-Makers have quoting obligations 

that other market participants do not 

have. 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule changes will impose 

any burden on intermarket competition 

that is not necessary or appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

because RUT will now be exclusively 

listed on CBOE (and C2). To the extent 

that the proposed changes make CBOE 

a more attractive marketplace for market 

participants at other exchanges, such 

market participants are welcome 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 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 10 and paragraph (f) of Rule 

19b–4 11 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 20529 

12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4The Commission previously has approved 

proposed rule changes relating to listing and trading 

on the Exchange of Units based on municipal bond 

indexes. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

67985 (October 4, 2012), 77 FR 61804 (October 11, 

2012) (SR–NYSEArca–2012–92) (order approving 

proposed rule change relating to the listing and 

trading of iShares 2018 S&P AMT-Free Municipal 

Series and iShares 2019 S&P AMT-Free Municipal 

Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), 

Commentary .02); 67729 (August 24, 2012), 77 FR 

52776 (August 30, 2012) (SR–NYSEArca–2012–92) 

(notice of proposed rule change relating to the 

listing and trading of iShares 2018 S&P AMT-Free 

Municipal Series and iShares 2019 S&P AMT-Free 

Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 

5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 71232 (January 3, 2014), 

79 FR 1662 (January 9, 2014) (SR–NYSEArca–2013– 

118) (order approving listing and trading of shares 

of the Market Vectors Short High-Yield Municipal 

Index ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), 

Commentary .02); 72523, (July 2, 2014), 79 FR 

39016 (July 9, 2014) (SR–NYSEArca–2014–37) 

(order approving proposed rule change relating to 

the listing and trading of iShares 2020 S&P AMTFree Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities 

Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02); 72172 (May 15, 

2014), 79 FR 29241 (May 21, 2014) (SR–NYSEArca– 

2014–37) (notice of proposed rule change relating 

to the listing and trading of iShares 2020 S&P AMTFree Municipal Series under NYSE Arca Equities 

Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02). The Commission 

also has issued a notice of filing and immediate 

effectiveness of a proposed rule change relating to 

listing and trading on the Exchange of shares of the 

iShares Taxable Municipal Bond Fund. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63176 (October 

25, 2010), 75 FR 66815 (October 29, 2010) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2010–94). The Commission has 

approved for Exchange listing and trading of shares 

of two actively managed funds of the PIMCO ETF 

Trust that principally hold municipal bonds. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60981 

(November 10, 2009), 74 FR 59594 (November 18, 

2009) (SR–NYSEArca–2009–79) (order approving 

listing and trading of shares of the PIMCO ShortTerm Municipal Bond Strategy Fund and PIMCO 

Intermediate Municipal Bond Strategy Fund). The 

Commission also has approved listing and trading 

on the Exchange of shares of the SPDR® Nuveen 

S&P High Yield Municipal Bond Fund under 

Commentary .02 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 

5.2(j)(3). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

63881 (February 9, 2011), 76 FR 9065 (February 16, 

2011) (SR–NYSEArca–2010–120). 

5On January 6, 2015, the Trust filed a registration 

statement on Form N–1A under the Securities Act 

Continued 

change 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– 

CBOE–2015–036 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–2015–036. 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– 

2015–036 and should be submitted on 

or before May 7, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.12

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08703 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74701; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2015–18] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to Listing and 

Trading under NYSE Arca Equities 

Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 of 

Shares of the Vanguard Tax-Exempt 

Bond Index Fund 

April 10, 2015. 

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 April 6, 

2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ 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 

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 list and 

trade under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 

5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, the shares of 

the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index 

Fund. The text of the proposed rule 

change is available on the Exchange’s 

Web site 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 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to list and 

trade shares (‘‘Shares’’) of the Vanguard 

Tax-Exempt Bond Index Fund’s ETF 

share class (‘‘Fund’’) under NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, 

which governs the listing and trading of 

Investment Company Units (‘‘Units’’) 

based on fixed income securities 

indexes.4 The Fund is a series of the 

Vanguard Municipal Bond Funds Trust 

(‘‘Trust’’).5 The Vanguard Group, Inc. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES