Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75599 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

license renewal application is available 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14343A849. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Mitchell, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

3019; email: Jeffrey.Mitchell2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 

has received an application, from 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC dated 

December 9, 2014, filed pursuant to 

Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, and Part 54 of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

to renew the operating licenses for 

LSCS, Units 1 and 2. Renewal of the 

licenses would authorize the applicant 

to operate the facilities for an additional 

20-year period beyond the periods 

specified in the respective current 

operating licenses. The current 

operating licenses for LSCS, Units 1 

(NPF–11) and 2 (NPF–18), expire at 

midnight on April 17, 2022, and 

December 16, 2023, respectively. The 

LSCS, Units 1 and 2, are boiling-water 

reactors designed by General Electric 

and are located in Brookfield Township, 

LaSalle County, Illinois. The 

acceptability of the tendered application 

for docketing, and other matters, 

including an opportunity to request a 

hearing, will be the subject of 

subsequent Federal Register notices. 

A copy of the license renewal 

application for LSCS, Units 1 and 2, is 

also available to local residents near the 

site at the Reddick Public Library 

District, 1010 Canal St., Ottawa, IL 

61350, Marseilles Public Library, 155 

East Bluff St., Marseilles, IL 61341, and 

Seneca Public Library District, 210 N. 

Main St., Seneca, IL 61360. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of December 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Christopher G. Miller, 

Director, Division of License Renewal, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29667 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73832; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2014–092] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the Fees 

Schedule 

December 12, 2014. 

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 December 

1, 2014, 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 December 1, 

2014. First, the Exchange proposes to 

amend the Trade Processing Services 

fee. Currently, the Exchange assesses a 

$0.0025 fee per contract side for each 

matched and unmatched trade. The 

Exchange notes that unmatched trades 

are also charged if and when they 

become matched. As such, the Exchange 

does not believe it’s necessary to charge 

unmatched trades the Trading 

Processing Fee, as the trades ultimately 

will be charged once matched. The 

Exchange further notes that when the 

fee was adopted, the billing processes 

were done manually and the fee helped 

offset the work involved in processing 

each of the trades, both matched and 

unmatched. The Exchange notes that 

this billing process is now automated 

and does not believe it is necessary to 

continue to bill unmatched trades. The 

Exchange additionally proposes to 

explicitly state in the Fees Schedule that 

for billing purposes, the Trade 

Processing Services fee will be rounded 

to the nearest $0.01 using standard 

rounding rules on a monthly basis. 

Currently, the Fees Schedule states 

that the quoting bandwidth allowance 

for a Market-Maker Trading Permit is 

equivalent to a maximum of 32,400,000 

quotes over the course of a trading day. 

The Exchange intends to increase 

quoting bandwidth allowance by 10%. 

As such, the Exchange seeks to make a 

corresponding amendment to the Fees 

Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to update the number of 

maximum quotes over the course of 

trading day from 32,400,000 to 

35,640,000. The Exchange notes that the 

increase of quoting bandwidth 

allowance applies to all Market-Maker 

Trading Permits and all Quoting and 

Order Entry Bandwidth Packets. 

The Exchange always strives for 

clarity in its rules and Fees Schedule, so 

that market participants may best 

understand how rules and fees apply. 

As such, the Exchange proposes to 

clarify its use of the terms ‘‘multiplylisted’’ (or ‘‘multi listed’’) and ‘‘singlelisted’’ options classes in the Fees 

Schedule. In conjunction with these 

clarifying changes, the Exchange also 

proposes to use the term ‘‘Underlying 

Symbol List A’’ in the Fees Schedule to 

refer to a specific set of proprietary 

products (i.e., OEX, XEO, SPX 

(including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, 

VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and 

binary options). 

By way of background, the Exchange 

notes that a specific set of proprietary 

products are 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

3Although included in the proposed Footnote 34 

definition of ‘‘Underlying Symbol List A,’’ the 

Exchange notes that SROs are excluded from the 

CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. This 

exclusion is already, and will continue to be, 

referenced in the Notes section of the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale table. 

these products in various sections of the 

Fees Schedule, the Exchange proposes 

to use the term ‘‘Underlying Symbol List 

A,’’ to represent these products, which 

the Exchange believes will simplify the 

Fees Schedule and make it easier to 

read. Underlying Symbol List A shall 

represent the following: OEX, XEO, SPX 

(including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, 

VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and 

binary options. The Exchange proposes 

to add a new Footnote (i.e., Footnote 

34), which defines the term ‘‘Underlying 

Symbol List A’’ as referring to the 

products listed above. 

The Exchange next proposes to amend 

the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale 

table. The Liquidity Provider Sliding 

Scale provides reduced transaction fees 

for a CBOE Market-Maker based on the 

Market-Maker executing a certain 

number of contracts per month. 

Currently, the Liquidity Provider 

Sliding Scale table provides that the 

volume thresholds are ‘‘based on total 

national Market-Maker volume of any 

option classes with traded volume on 

CBOE during the calendar month.’’ 

Additionally, the notes section of the 

Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale table 

provides that the reduced transaction 

fees are not applicable to ‘‘mini-options, 

SPX, SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, 

VOLATILITY INDEXES, OEX or XEO.’’ 

The Exchange proposes to change how 

the volume thresholds are calculated. 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes that 

the volume thresholds be based on the 

total national Market-Maker volume in 

all underlying symbols excluding those 

in Underlying Symbol List A and minioptions. The Exchange notes that 

currently, the calculation of the volume 

thresholds for the Liquidity Provider 

Sliding Scale is based on total national 

Market-Maker volume of any options 

classes with traded volume on CBOE 

during the calendar month and excludes 

volume in products that may not be 

listed on CBOE. As certain options 

classes may have volume traded on 

CBOE in some months, but not others, 

the Exchange believes it is more 

challenging for Trading Permit Holders 

(‘‘TPHs’’) to anticipate which classes 

will be part of the calculation each 

month and how that may or may not 

affect which tier and transaction fee will 

apply to them. The Exchange believes 

the proposed rule change eliminates this 

uncertainty by including all options 

classes except those in Underlying 

Symbol List A (and mini-options), 

which will reduce confusion and make 

it easier for TPHs to calculate and 

anticipate what volume threshold tier 

they will fall into each month and 

consequently which rates will be 

applicable to them. Additionally, the 

Exchange believes the proposed change 

will more accurately reflect which 

option classes are counted towards the 

qualifying volume thresholds. Lastly 

with respect to the Liquidity Provider 

Sliding Scale, the Exchange proposes to 

replace the list of products for which 

the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale 

does not apply with the term 

‘‘Underlying Symbol List A.’’ 

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale table. Currently, the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale table 

provides that Clearing Trading Permit 

Holder Proprietary transaction fees and 

transaction fees for Non-Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder Affiliates in 

OEX, XEO, SPX, SPXpm, VIX, VXST, 

and VOLATILITY INDEXES are reduced 

provided a Clearing Trading Permit 

Holder reaches certain volume 

thresholds in ‘‘multiply-listed’’ options 

classes on the Exchange in a month. The 

Exchange proposes to replace the list of 

proprietary products set forth in the 

notes section with the term ‘‘Underlying 

Symbol List A.’’ 3 The Exchange also 

proposes to replace the term ‘‘multiplylisted’’ with the following language: ‘‘all 

underlying symbols excluding 

Underlying Symbol List A and minioptions.’’ The Exchange notes that the 

proposed change more accurately 

describes which option classes are 

included in the qualification thresholds 

for the CBOE Proprietary Products 

Sliding Scale. Particularly, the Exchange 

notes that DJX, XSP, and XSPAM are 

included towards the qualification 

thresholds of the CBOE Proprietary 

Products Sliding Scale. Specifically, 

DJX and XSP are used to compete with 

multi-listed products that are also listed 

on CBOE (for example, the singly-listed 

XSP options compete with the multiplylisted SPY options, both of which 

approximate 1/10 of the S&P 500 Index, 

and the singly-listed DJX options 

compete with the multiply-listed DIA 

options, both of which are based on 1/ 

100 of the value of the Dow Jones 

Industrial Average). Including the 

multiply-listed products for 

qualification towards the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale 

while excluding their singly-listed 

competitors could create a pricing 

advantage that might discourage trading 

in some of the singly-listed products 

that the Exchange expended resources 

to develop. As such, the Exchange 

includes these singly-listed products for 

qualification towards the CBOE 

Proprietary Products Sliding Scale along 

with their multiply-listed competitors. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

change makes the CBOE Proprietary 

Sliding Scale table easier to read and 

more clearly describes the option 

classes included and excluded in the 

threshold volumes. The Exchange also 

proposes to make corresponding 

changes to Footnote 23, which Footnote 

relates to the CBOE Proprietary Sliding 

Scale. 

The Exchange next proposes to amend 

the Volume Incentive Program (VIP) 

table. Under VIP, the Exchange credits 

each TPH the per contract amount set 

forth in the VIP table resulting from 

each public customer (‘‘C’’ origin code) 

order transmitted by that TPH which is 

executed electronically on the Exchange 

in all ‘‘multiply-listed option classes,’’ 

with certain exclusions, provided the 

TPH meets certain volume thresholds in 

‘‘multiply-listed options classes.’’ The 

Exchange proposes to replace the term 

‘‘multiply-listed options classes’’ with 

the phrase ‘‘all underlying symbols 

excluding Underlying Symbol List A, 

RUT, DJX, XSP, XSPAM, credit default 

options, credit default basket options 

and mini-options.’’ The Exchange notes 

that the VIP Program has always been 

limited to multiply-listed options 

classes (i.e., options listed and traded on 

another national securities exchange) 

and mini-options. The Exchange 

believes the proposed change more 

clearly describes the option classes that 

are currently excluded from the VIP 

volume thresholds and per contract 

credit. 

The Exchange proposes to similarly 

amend Footnote 12 (relating to Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder Proprietary 

Transaction Fees). Currently, Footnote 

12 of the Fees Schedule provides that 

the Clearing Trading Permit Holder 

Proprietary Transaction Fee will be 

waived for Clearing Trading Permit 

Holders executing facilitation orders in 

‘‘multiply-listed’’ FLEX Options classes. 

The Exchange proposes to change the 

reference to ‘‘multiply-listed’’ FLEX 

options to ‘‘FLEX options in all 

underlying symbols excluding 

Underlying Symbol List A, credit 

default options and credit default basket 

options.’’ The Exchange believes the 

proposed change more accurately 

describes which Flex options will and 

will not have the Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder Transaction Fee waived. 

For the reasons described above, the 

Exchange notes that Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction 

Fees are waived for DJX, XSP, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 75601 

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

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

6 Id. 

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

XSPAM, as not waiving Clearing 

Trading Permit Holder Proprietary 

Transaction Fees for both these products 

and their multiply-listed competitors 

could create a pricing advantage that 

might discourage trading in some of the 

singly-listed products that the Exchange 

expended resources to develop. 

Current Footnote 25, which governs 

rebates on Floor Broker Trading Permits, 

also references the term ‘‘multiply-listed 

options classes.’’ Specifically, Footnote 

25 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 

‘‘multiply-listed option classes,’’ 

excluding subcabinet trades, will 

receive a rebate on that Floor Broker’s 

Trading Permit Holder’s Floor Broker 

Trading Permit Fees. The Exchange 

proposes to replace the term multiplylisted options classes’’ with ‘‘all 

underlying symbols excluding 

Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, XSP, 

XSPAM, credit default options, credit 

default basket options’’ and also 

proposes to not count mini-options 

towards the Floor Broker Trading Permit 

rebate. The Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change provides 

consistency in the Fees Schedule and 

makes clear which option classes are 

meant to be included (and excluded) in 

the calculation of the volume threshold 

used to qualify for the rebate. 

Finally, the Exchange proposes to 

remove the reference to ‘‘single-listed 

options traded on CBOE’’ in Footnotes 

29 and 30 (relating to the Order Router 

Subsidy (‘‘ORS’’) and Complex Order 

Router Subsidy (‘‘CORS’’) Programs) 

and instead reference the options 

classes ‘‘included in Underlying Symbol 

List A, DJX, XSP or XSPAM.’’ The 

Exchange notes that each of the 

products listed in Underlying Symbol 

List A are considered ‘‘single-listed’’ 

products, as are DJX, XSP and XSPAM 

(i.e., not listed and traded on another 

national securities exchange) and that 

no substantive changes are being made 

by this change. Rather, the proposed 

change is intended to provide further 

consistency and clarity in the Fees 

Schedule. 

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, 

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 

the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange also 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. 

In particular, the Exchange believes it 

is reasonable and equitable to cease 

charging the Trade Processing Services 

fee for unmatched trade data. As noted 

above, unmatched trades will be 

charged if and when they become 

matched. As such, the Exchange does 

not believe it’s necessary to assess the 

Trading Processing Fee to unmatched 

trades. Additionally, when the fee was 

originally introduced, the billing 

processes for assessing this fee were 

done manually and the fee helped offset 

the work involved in matched and 

unmatched data. As the billing process 

is now automated, the Exchange does 

not believe it is necessary to continue to 

bill unmatched trades. The Exchange 

believes it’s reasonable to cease charging 

unmatched trade data the Trade 

Processing Services fee because it will 

merely result in Trading Permit Holders 

no longer being subject to this fee. The 

Exchange believes the proposed change 

is not unfairly discriminatory as it 

applies equally to all Trading Permit 

Holders, who no longer will be charged 

the fee for unmatched trade data. 

Additionally, all trades, once matched, 

will continue to be charged the fee. The 

Exchange believes providing in the Fees 

Schedule that for billing purposes, the 

Trade Processing Services fee will be 

rounded to the nearest $0.01 using 

standard rounding rules on a monthly 

basis, will alleviate confusion as to how 

the fee, which is under $0.01, will be 

assessed. 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. The 

Exchange also believes that amending 

the Fees Schedule to accurately reflect 

the increase in quoting bandwidth 

allowance, alleviates confusion, thereby 

removing impediments to and 

perfecting the mechanism of a free open 

market and a national market system, 

and, in general, protect investors and 

the public interest. 

The Exchange believes it is equitable, 

reasonable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to include DJX, XSP and 

XSPAM towards qualification of the 

CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding 

Scale and to waive Clearing Trading 

Permit Holder Proprietary Transaction 

Fees for DJX, XSP and XSPAM as these 

products are used to compete with 

multi-listed products that are also listed 

on CBOE (as explained above). The 

Exchange also believes it is reasonable, 

equitable and not unfairly 

discriminatory to not count mini-option 

volume towards the Floor Broker 

Trading Permit rebate. The Exchange 

notes that it funds the costs associated 

with mini-options with revenues only 

from those participants who trade them. 

The Exchange also notes that the cost to 

process quotes, orders and trades in 

mini-options is the same as for standard 

options. Including mini-option volume 

towards the qualifying threshold for a 

Floor Broker Trading Permit rebate 

might necessitate raising costs for other 

market participants; therefore, the 

Exchange believes that the exclusion of 

mini-options is both reasonable and 

equitable. Further, as the measuring 

stick to determine whether a Trading 

Permit Holder meets the qualifying 

thresholds is the number of contracts 

traded, it would be difficult for the 

Exchange to count mini-option 

contracts, since they effectively function 

as 1/10th of a regular standard options 

contract. 

Finally, the Exchange believes that 

eliminating potentially vague terms like 

‘‘multiply-listed options classes’’ and 

‘‘single-listed option classes’’ and 

replacing those terms with more explicit 

references to which option classes are or 

are not included or excluded in a 

program alleviates potential confusion. 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule changes also eliminates uncertainty 

as to which options classes will or will 

not be used in calculating certain 

volume, which will reduce confusion 

and make it easier for TPHs to calculate 

and anticipate what volume thresholds 

they will meet and consequently which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f). 

10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

rates will be applicable to them. The 

Exchange believes that defining and 

then using the term ‘‘Underlying 

Symbol List A’’ to represent a 

commonly referred to set of proprietary 

products in lieu of listing out these 

products in various sections of the Fees 

Schedule simplifies the Fees Schedule 

and makes it easier to read. 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 

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. CBOE 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 changes apply to all Trading 

Permit Holders. The Exchange believes 

that the proposal to cease charging the 

Trade Processing Services fee for 

unmatched trade data will not cause an 

unnecessary burden on intermarket 

competition because other exchanges 

already do not charge a similar fee. 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 written 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. 

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–2014–092 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–2014–092. 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– 

2014–092 and should be submitted on 

or before January 8, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.10

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29619 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73833; File No. SR–C2– 

2014–027] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 

Options Exchange, Incorporated; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change To Amend Exchange Rules 

Regarding Trade Nullification and 

Price Adjustment 

December 12, 2014. 

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 December 

11, 2014, C2 Options Exchange, 

Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘C2’’) 

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 the Substance 

of the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

rules related to trade nullification and 

price adjustment. The text of the 

proposed rule change is provided 

below. 

(additions are italicized; deletions are 

[bracketed]) 

* * * * * 

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated 

Rules 

* * * * * 

Rule 6.20. Trade Nullification and Price 

Adjustment Procedure 

A trade on the Exchange may be 

nullified or adjusted if the parties to the 

trade agree to the nullification or 

adjustment. A trade may be nullified or 

adjusted on the terms that all parties to 

a particular transaction agree, provided, 

however, that any trade that is nullified 

or adjusted pursuant to this Rule must 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES