[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86771]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28544]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Disposal of 2.96
Acres of Airport Land at Laconia Municipal Airport in Gilford, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Laconia Airport
Authority in Gilford, NH, to dispose of 2.96 acres of airport land that
is not required for aviation purposes at Laconia Municipal Airport.
    The subject parcel has been identified as property no longer needed
for aviation use by the Laconia Airport Authority (LAA). The property,
Lot 13, located along the east side of Lily Pond Road (NH Route 11C) in
the Town of Gilford, is located on the northerly side of the airport's
existing business park. The intended use of the property is for boat
storage, which is a compatible use adjacent to the airport. Given the
location of the parcel, the disposal of this property will have no
effect on aviation land nor future development opportunities for the
airport. The proceeds of the disposal will be placed in the airport's
account and to be used for the operation and maintenance of the
airport. Appropriate avigation easements will be placed on the property
to ensure compatibility with the airport and the airport's airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region
Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 17, 2016.
Gail B. Lattrell,
Manager, ANE-630.
[FR Doc. 2016-28544 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46295]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17668]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92649; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Modify Certain Pricing Limitations for
Companies Listing in Connection With a Direct Listing Primary Offering

August 12, 2021.
    On June 11, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow companies to modify certain pricing
limitations for companies listing in connection with a direct listing
primary offering in which the company will sell shares itself in the
opening auction on the first day of trading on Nasdaq. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
30, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92256 (June 24,
2021), 86 FR 34815 (June 30, 2021). Comment received on the proposed
rule change available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2021-045/srnasdaq2021045.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 14, 2021. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments
received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ designates September 28, 2021 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NASDAQ-2021-045).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17668 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87338-87339]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27606]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1329; Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-
440, T-455, T-457, T-459, and T-476, and Amendment of RNAV Routes T-
358, T-416, and T-445; Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on November 24, 2023, that establishes United States
Area Navigation (RNAV) routes T-440, T-455, T-457, T-459, and T-476,
and amends RNAV routes T-358, T-416, and T-445 in support of the FAA's
Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational
Network (MON) Program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 25, 2024. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule, and all background material may
be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR
82252; November 24, 2023), amending and establishing multiple RNAV T-
routes in support of the FAA's VOR MON Program. Subsequent to
publication, the FAA determined that for RNAV route T-358, the SWANN,
MD; AVALO, NJ; MANTA, NJ; BURDY, MA; LBSTA, MA; and MESHL, ME, route
points were inadvertently identified as WPs, in error. This rule
corrects those errors by changing all references to these six points as
Fixes. These are editorial changes only to match the FAA's aeronautical
database information.
    Additionally, the FAA determined that it inadvertently omitted the
BEADS, NY, Fix, and the JORDN, NY, Fix, from the part 71 description of
RNAV route T-358. The BEADS Fix and the JORDN Fix were part of RNAV
route T-358 but were incorrectly calculated to be a turn of less than
one degree so they were not originally included in the part 71
description. Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined that the
route segment between the MANTA, NJ, Fix and the BEADS Fix was a turn
of two degrees; and the route segment between the ORCHA, NY, WP and the
JORDN Fix was a turn of one degree, which require that the BEADS and
the JORDN Fixes be added to the part 71 description. Adding the BEADS
Fix and the JORDN Fix to RNAV route T-358 does not substantially alter
the route.
    In describing the changes to RNAV route T-445, the location of the
Westminster, VORTAC was identified in error as ``ME'' and is corrected
from ``Westminster, ME (EMI), VORTAC'' to ``Westminster, MD, (EMI),
VORTAC''.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in Docket
No. FAA-2023-1329. As published in the Federal Register of November 24,
2023 (88 FR 82252), FR Doc. 2023-25852, is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 82253, in the first column, under the heading ``The
Rule'' in the paragraph starting with ``T-358'', correct ``AVALO, NJ,
WP'' to read ``AVALO, NJ, Fix''.
    2. On page 82253, in the first column, under the heading ``The
Rule'' in the paragraph starting with ``T-358'', correct ``AVALO WP and
the BURDY, MA, WP; and between the LBSTA, MA, WP'' to read ``AVALO Fix
and the

BURDY, MA, Fix; and between the LBSTA, MA, Fix''.
    3. On page 82253, in the first column, under the heading ``The
Rule'' in the paragraph starting with ``T-445,'' correct ``Westminster,
ME (EMI), VORTAC'' to read ``Westminster, MD (EMI), VORTAC''.
    4. On page 82253 correct the table ``T-358 Martinsburg, WV (MRB) to
Augusta, ME (AUG) [Amended]'' to read:

T-358 Martinsburg, WV (MRB) to Augusta, ME (AUG) [Amended]
Martinsburg, WV (MRB)                           VORTAC                         (Lat. 39[deg]23'08.06'' N, long. 077[deg]50'54.08'' W)
CPTAL, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]32'16.02'' N, long. 077[deg]41'55.65'' W)
TWIRK, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]34'36.70'' N, long. 077[deg]12'44.75'' W)
HAMRR, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]30'03.42'' N, long. 076[deg]56'10.84'' W)
DANII, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]17'46.42'' N, long. 076[deg]42'19.36'' W)
OBWON, MD                                       WP                             (Lat. 39[deg]11'54.69'' N, long. 076[deg]32'04.84'' W)
SWANN, MD                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]09'05.28'' N, long. 076[deg]13'43.94'' W)
Smyrna, DE (ENO)                                VORTAC                         (Lat. 39[deg]13'53.93'' N, long. 075[deg]30'57.49'' W)
AVALO, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]16'54.52'' N, long. 074[deg]30'50.75'' W)
MANTA, NJ                                       FIX                            (Lat. 39[deg]54'07.01'' N, long. 073[deg]32'31.63'' W)
BEADS, NY                                       FIX                            (Lat. 40[deg]44'04.51'' N, long. 072[deg]32'34.21'' W)
ORCHA, NY                                       WP                             (Lat. 40[deg]54'55.46'' N, long. 072[deg]18'43.64'' W)
JORDN, NY                                       FIX                            (Lat. 41[deg]03'16.92'' N, long. 071[deg]54'52.66'' W)
Sandy Point, RI (SEY)                           VOR/DME                        (Lat. 41[deg]10'02.77'' N, long. 071[deg]34'33.91'' W)
BURDY, MA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 41[deg]57'19.14'' N, long. 070[deg]57'07.45'' W)
HAVNS, OA                                       WP                             (Lat. 42[deg]17'55.00'' N, long. 070[deg]27'42.00'' W)
GRGIO, MA                                       WP                             (Lat. 42[deg]35'09.36'' N, long. 070[deg]33'54.40'' W)
LBSTA, MA                                       FIX                            (Lat. 42[deg]48'00.00'' N, long. 070[deg]36'48.70'' W)
MESHL, ME                                       FIX                            (Lat. 43[deg]19'12.07'' N, long. 070[deg]09'48.03'' W)
Augusta, ME (AUG)                               VOR/DME                        (Lat. 44[deg]19'12.07'' N, long. 069[deg]47'47.63'' W)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2023.
Frank Lias,
Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-27606 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 52935-52936]
[DOCID:fr30au10-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-486-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Application

August 23, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 12, 2010, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), filed in Docket
No. CP10-486-000, an application authoring the construction and
operation of an air blending station consisting of compression and
appurtenant facilities located in Douglas County, Colorado.
Specifically, CIG states that it proposes: (1) To construct and operate
the Spruce Hill Air Blending Project facilities (Project); (2) to
charge and collect, pursuant to section 4 of the NGA, the New Spruce
Hill Gas Quality Control Surcharge for services to be rendered via the
Project; (3) acceptance of certain potential non-conforming contract
provisions contained in the executed Firm Transportation Service
Agreements (FTSA) for the Project; and (4) exemption, for one of the
FTSAs, from the collection of Fuel Gas. The proposed facilities will be
constructed adjacent to CIG's existing Spruce Hill Meter Station. CIG
estimates the cost of the facilities will be $15,900,000, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number

field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Ms.
Susan C. Stires, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at (719) 667-
7514 or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. or Mr. Craig V. Richardson, Vice
President and General Counsel, Colorado Interstate Gas Company; P.O.
Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit original plus seven copies of any filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: September 13, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21467 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19282-19289]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08390]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80496; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.87

April 20, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 17, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.87 (Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors). 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 purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.87 relating to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous transactions. This filing is
based on a proposal recently submitted by Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and approved by the Commission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80040 (February 14,
2017), 82 FR 11248 (February 21, 2017) (``CBOE Approval Order'');
79697 (December 27, 2016), 82 FR 167 (January 3, 2017) (``CBOE
Notice'') (SR-CBOE-2016-088). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80247 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14589 (March 21, 2017)
(SR-BOX-2017-08) (immediately effective filing based on CBOE
Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new,
harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related
to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving
erroneous options transactions.\5\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further
discussion, including how erroneous Complex Orders and Stock/Option
Orders should be handled.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74921 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27747 (May 14, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-41).
    \6\ Rule 6.62(e) (defining Complex Order) and (h)(1) (defining
Stock/Option Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to
identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to
Complex Orders and Stock/Option Orders. The goal of the process that
the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize rules
related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options
transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges and NYSE Arca have agreed to propose will
provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous Complex Order and Stock/Option Order
transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve
consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while
maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and
protecting the public interest.
    The proposed rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and
reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges
that offer Complex Orders and/or Stock/Option Orders will universally
adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe
will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result
from the execution of Complex Orders and Stock-Option orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that it only offers Stock/Option Orders
in open outcry, but does not offer electronic Stock/Option Orders.
Therefore, the Exchange is not adopting the CBOE provisions around
Stock/Option Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule supports an approach
consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under
which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions.
The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary
to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets,
where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than
adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market
participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth
below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure
between equities and options markets continue to support these
distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the
equities and options markets.
    Various general structural differences between the options and
equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of
risks for options market participants and are reflected in this
proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the
underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other
factors. Because options market participants can generally create new
open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is
created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are
generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This
pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the
options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from
the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the
hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitates
protection of transactions through adjustments rather than
nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.
    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on
liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In
contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the
U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique,
regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series
the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than
equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by
registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With
the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote
and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously,
the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded
a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes
that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades
given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to
protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued
liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options
markets.
    In addition to the factors described above, there are other
fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend
themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants
that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade
reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must
occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater
retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the
equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer
participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in
off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer
market making desks and internalizers. In turn, because of such direct
retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford
those retail customers--generally Customers--more favorable treatment
in some circumstances.
Proposed Rule
    As more fully described below, although the proposed rule applies
much of the current rule (i.e., initial harmonized rule) to Complex
Orders, it deviates to account for unique qualities of these
transactions.\8\ Specifically, the

proposed rule reflects the fact that Complex Orders can execute against
other Complex Orders or can execute against individual simple orders in
the leg market.\9\ When a Complex Order executes against the leg
markets, there may be different counterparties on each leg of the
Complex Order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an
erroneous price. To account for these variables, the proposed rule, as
set forth in new Commentary .05, is divided into two parts--paragraphs
(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, for a Complex Order to qualify as an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error, at least one leg of the Complex Order must
itself qualify as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under the current
rule. See proposed Commentary .05(a)-(b) to Rule 6.87. See also Rule
6.87(c)(5) (regarding Complex Order Obvious Errors, which rule text
was not part of the prior harmonization effort).
    \9\ The leg market consists of individual quotes and/or orders
in single options series. A Complex Order may be received by the
Exchange electronically, and the legs of the Complex Order may have
different counterparties. For example, Market Maker 1 may be quoting
in ABC calls and Market Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A
Complex Order to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the
quotes of Market Maker 1 and Market Maker 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Orders Executed Against Individual Legs
    Proposed Commentary .05(a) governs the review of Complex Orders
that are executed against the individual legs (as opposed to against
another Complex Order). Proposed Rule 6.87.05(a) provides:

    If a Complex Order executes against individual legs and at least
one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1)
or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that
is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance
with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer
order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the
adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). If any leg of
a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the Complex Order
must qualify as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under the current rule
in order for the Complex Order to receive Obvious or Catastrophic Error
relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set
forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a Complex Order that is a
possible Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error, the Exchange will first
review the individual legs of the Complex Order to determine if one or
more legs qualify as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error.\10\ If no leg
qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error, the transaction stands--
no adjustment and no nullification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Because a Complex Order can execute against the leg market,
the Exchange may also be notified of a possible Obvious or
Catastrophic Error by a counterparty that received an execution in
an individual options series. If upon review of a potential Obvious
Error the Exchange determines an individual options series was
executed against the leg of a Complex Order, proposed Commentary .05
of Rule 6.87 will govern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as
an Obvious or Catastrophic Error requires the Exchange to follow the
current rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the
current rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each
individual leg to the Theoretical Price \11\ of each leg (as determined
by paragraph (b) of the current rule). If the execution price of an
individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the
series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the Obvious
Error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the current rule or the Catastrophic
Error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the initial harmonized rule, the
individual leg qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic error, and the
Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 6.87(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical
Price is determined).
    \12\ Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that
qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error per proposed Rule
6.87.05 will be adjusted. The execution price of a leg (or legs)
that does not qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error will not
be adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, assume that a Customer enters a Complex Order to the
Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2: Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls;
and Leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, assume that Market Maker 1
(``MM1'') is quoting the ABC calls at $1.00-1.20; and Market Maker 2
(``MM2'') is quoting the ABC puts at $2.00-2.20. If the Complex Order
executes against the quotes of MMs 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC
calls for $1.20 and sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the Obvious/
Catastrophic Error reviews for simple orders, the execution price of
each Leg (i.e., Legs 1 and 2) are compared to the Theoretical Price for
each Leg to determine if either Leg qualifies as an Obvious Error (per
paragraph (c)(1)) or Catastrophic Error (per paragraph (d)(1)).\13\ If
it is determined that one or both of the legs are an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error, then the leg (or legs) that is an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the current rule, regardless of whether one of
the parties is a Customer.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 11.
    \14\ See Rule 6.87 (a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of
Rule 6.87 as not including any broker-dealer or Professional
Customer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a single-legged execution that is deemed to be an Obvious
Error under the current rule is nullified whenever a Customer is
involved in the transaction, the Exchange believes adjusting execution
prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying
executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging
transactions to offset options positions. When an options transaction
is nullified the hedging position can adversely affect the liquidity
provider. With regards to Complex Orders that execute against
individual legs, the additional rationale for adjusting erroneous
execution prices when possible is the fact that the counterparty on a
leg that is not executed at an Obvious or Catastrophic Error price
cannot look at the execution price to determine whether the execution
may later be nullified (as opposed to the counterparty on single-legged
order that is executed at an Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error
price).
    Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the current rule mandates that if it is
determined that an Obvious Error has occurred, the execution price of
the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in
(c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders, paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only
applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer; for purposes
of Complex Orders, proposed Commentary .05(a) will supersede this
limitation. Specifically, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a
Complex Order is an Obvious Error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted
pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether any party to the
transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier (defined in
subparagraph (a)(4)) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a
Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the application of
paragraph (c)(4)(A).\15\ The Exchange notes that adjusting all market
participants is not unique or novel. When the Exchange determines that
a simple order execution is a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the
initial harmonized rule, paragraph (d)(3) already provides for
adjusting the execution price for all market participants, including
Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 6.87(c)(4)(A) (providing that any non-Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as with the current, Proposed Rule 6.87.05(a) provides

protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party
to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be
nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for
buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). For example,
assume a Customer enters a Complex Order to buy leg 1 and leg 2:
     Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for
leg 2 is $0.501.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market
opened.
     A split-second prior to the execution of the Complex
Order, a different Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1
options series at $1.30, and this order enters the Exchange's book
resulting in a BBO of $0.20-$1.30. The limit price of the simple order
is $1.30.
     The Complex Order executes leg 1 against the Exchange best
offer of $1.30 and leg 2 executes at $1.00, for a net execution price
of $2.30.
     However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg
1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than
$0.75).\16\ Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg
2 was $0.50-1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 6.87(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg
1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1
qualifies as an Obvious Error because the difference between the
Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger
than $0.25.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 6.87(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Per Proposed Rule 6.87.05(a), Customers will also be
adjusted in accordance with Rule 6.87(c)(4)(A), which for a buy
transaction under $3.00 means the Theoretical Price will be adjusted by
adding $0.15 to the Theoretical Price of $1.00.\18\ Thus, the adjusted
execution price for Leg 1 would be $1.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 6.87(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15
would violate the limit price of the Customer's sell order for leg 1,
which was $1.30.
     Thus, the entire Complex Order transaction will be
nullified because the limit price of a Customer's sell order would be
violated by the adjustment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire
transaction is nullified. See Proposed Rule 6.87.05(a). The Exchange
notes that the simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell
transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See
Rule 6.87(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the above example demonstrates, incoming Complex Orders may
execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a Complex
Order leg is deemed to be an Obvious Error, adjusting the execution
price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order,
which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a
Customer. In contrast, Commentary .02 to Rule 6.87 provides that if an
adjustment would result in an execution price that is higher than an
erroneous buy transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction
the execution will not be adjusted or nullified.\20\ If the adjustment
of a Complex Order would violate the Complex Order Customer's limit
price, the transaction will be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Commentary .02 to Rule 6.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the current rule already
mandates that if it is determined that a Catastrophic Error has
occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of Complex
Orders, under Rule 6.87.05(a), if one of the legs of a Complex Order is
determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), all
market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set
forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a Complex
Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if
adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Again, if any
leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is
nullified.
    Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer
orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers
the same in the context of the Complex Orders that trade against the
leg market. When Complex Orders trade against the leg market, it is
possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that
would not be deemed Obvious or Catastrophic Errors, which gives the
counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will
later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating
Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide
additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market Makers) with
respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including
comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction
will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the
proposed rule where at least one party to the transaction is a
Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in
an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the Complex Order or
individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a
Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the
adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected,
and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared
to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers
is more appropriate.
Complex Orders Executed Against Complex Orders
    Proposed Commentary .05(b) to Rule 6.87 governs the review of
Complex Orders that are executed against other Complex Orders.
Specifically, proposed Rule 6.87.05(b) provides:

    If a Complex Order executes against another Complex Order and at
least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph
(c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the
leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or
busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively,
so long as either: (i) The width of the Complex NBBO for the Complex
Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to
or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of
paragraph (b)(3); or (ii) the net execution price of the Complex
Order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the Complex NBBO for
the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction
by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in
paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the
entire transaction is nullified.

    As described above in relation to proposed Rule 6.87.05(a), the
first step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely
notification in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the
current rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs
qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error. If no leg qualifies as
an Obvious or Catastrophic Error, the transaction stands--no adjustment
and no nullification. If the adjustment of a complex order would
violate the complex order Customer's limit price, the transaction will
be nullified.
    Unlike proposed Rule 6.87.05(a), the Exchange also proposes to
compare the net execution price of the entire Complex Order package to
the Complex NBBO for the complex order strategy.\21\

Complex Orders are exempt from the order protection rules of the
options exchanges.\22\ Thus, depending on the manner in which the
systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a Complex Order can
execute without regard to the prices offered in the complex order books
or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations,
reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the
leg appear to be an Obvious or Catastrophic error, even though the net
execution price on the Complex Order is not an erroneous price. For
example, assume the Exchange receives a Complex Order to buy ABC calls
and sell ABC puts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Complex NBBO is the derived net market for a Complex
Order package. For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00-2.00 and
the NBBO of Leg 2 is $5.00-7.00, then the Complex NBBO for a Complex
Order to buy Leg 1 and buy Leg 2 is $6.00-9.00. See Rule 6.1A(11)(b)
(defining Complex NBBO as ``the NBBO for a given complex order
strategy as derived from the national best bid and national best
offer for each individual component series of a Complex Order'').
The Complex NBBO is analogous to the concept of the National Spread
Market, or NSM, as used by other exchanges. See supra 4, CBOE
Notice, 82 FR at 170; CBOE Approval Order, 82 FR at 11249-50.
    \22\ All options exchanges have the same order protection rule.
See, e.g., Rule 6.94(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for
ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-
4.50.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Complex Order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts.
The Exchange's best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange's best
bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the Complex Order
strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls
for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to
sell the Complex Order strategy the Customer would receive a credit
of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts
for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange's spread market--or Complex BBO--is
$1.00-4.50. See also Rule 6.1A((b) (defining Complex BBO as ``the
BBO for a given complex order strategy as derived from the best bid
on OX and best offer on OX for each individual component series of a
Complex Order''). The Complex BBO is analogous to the concept of the
``exchange spread market,'' as used by other exchanges. See supra 4,
CBOE Notice, 82 FR at 173, fn22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO
for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the Complex NBBO is $2.00-3.00. If
the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts at $4.50, the
Complex Order Customer receives a net execution price of $3.00 (debit),
which is the expected net execution price as indicated by the Complex
NBBO offer of $3.00.
    If the Exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price
of the ABC calls or the $4.50 execution price of the ABC puts, the
execution would qualify as an Obvious or Catastrophic error because the
execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net
execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the Complex
NBBO to determine if the Complex Order was executed at a truly
erroneous price is necessary.\24\ The same concern is not present when
a Complex Order executes against the leg market under proposed Rule
6.87.05(a). The Exchange permits a given leg of a Complex Order to
trade through the NBBO, however the Exchange will not accept incoming
Complex Orders if they are priced a certain amount outside of the
Complex NBBO.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange notes that this treatment is consistent with
current Rule 6.87(c)(5)(A), which provides that ``[i]f a Complex
Order executes against another Complex Order in the Complex Order
Book and one or more legs of the transaction is deemed eligible to
be adjusted or busted, the entire trade (all legs) will be busted,
unless both parties agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price within thirty (30) minutes of being notified by the Exchange
of the decision to bust''). The Exchange proposes to delete
paragraph (c)(5) of the Rule in its entirety to harmonize with
proposed Rule 6.87.05. See below, under the heading ``Conforming
Change to Eliminate Current Rule Regarding Complex Orders Obvious
Errors,'' for additional discussion.
    \25\ Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91 sets forth the Price Protection
Filter (``Filter''), which prevents the execution of aggressively-
priced electronic Complex Orders (i.e., priced so far away from the
prevailing contra-side NBBO market for the same strategy).
Specifically, an incoming electronic Complex Order will be rejected
(or cancelled) if the sum of the following is less than zero
($0.00): (i) The net debit (credit) limit price of the order, (ii)
the contra-side Complex NBBO for that same Complex Order, and (iii)
an amount specified by the Exchange (``Specified Amount'' or
``Amount''). The Specified Amount varies depending on the smallest
MPV of any leg in the Complex Order, e.g., the Amount ranges from
.10 to .15 to .30 where the smallest MPV of any leg is .01 to .05 to
.10, respectively. See Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to incorporate Complex NBBO, proposed Rule 6.87.05(b)
provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does
qualify as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error, the leg or legs will be
adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the
current rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the Complex NBBO for
the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was
equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table
of paragraph (b)(3) of the current rule or (ii) the net execution price
of the Complex Order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the
Complex NBBO for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous
transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the
table in paragraph (c)(1) of the current rule.
    For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an
Obvious or Catastrophic Error and the width of the Complex NBBO of the
Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is
$6.00-9.00. The Complex Order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the current rule because the wide
quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the current rule indicates that the
minimum amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the
Complex NBBO were instead $6.00-7.00 the Complex Order strategy would
not qualify to be adjusted or busted pursuant to proposed Rule
6.87.05(b)(i) because the width of the Complex NBBO is $1.00, which is
less than the required $1.50. However, the execution may still qualify
to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3)
of the current rule pursuant to proposed Rule 6.87.05(b)(ii). Focusing
on the Complex NBBO in this manner will ensure that the Obvious/
Catastrophic Error review process focuses on the net execution price
instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have
execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.
    Again, assume an individual leg (or legs) qualifies as an Obvious
or Catastrophic Error as described above. If the Complex NBBO is $6.00-
7.00 (not a wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph
(b)(3) of the current rule) but the execution price of the entire
Complex Order package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower)
than the offer (bid) of the Complex NBBO for the complex order strategy
just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least
the amount in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the current rule, then
the Complex Order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the current rule. For example, if the
Complex NBBO for the Complex Order strategy just prior to the erroneous
transaction is $6.00-7.00 and the net execution price of the Complex
Order transaction is $7.75, the Complex Order qualifies to be adjusted
or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the current rule
because the execution price of $7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the
minimum amount according to the table in paragraph (c)(1) when the
price is above $5.00 but less than $10.01) from the Complex NBBO offer
of $7.00. Focusing on the Complex NBBO in this manner will ensure that
the Obvious/Catastrophic error review process focuses on the net
execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs,
which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.

    Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is
generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because
liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset
options positions, the Exchange recognizes that Complex Orders
executing against other Complex Orders is similar to simple orders
executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to
review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may
have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of Complex
Orders that meet the requirements of Rule 6.87.05(b), the Exchange
proposes to apply the current rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph
(c)(4)(A) as is the case under Rule 6.87.05(a) and catastrophic errors
in accordance with (d)(3).
    Therefore, for purposes of Complex Orders under proposed Rule
6.87.05(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error
under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified,
unless an OTP Holder or OTP Firm submits 200 or more Customer
transactions for review in accordance with (c)(4)(C).\26\ For purposes
of Complex Orders under proposed Rule 6.87.05(b), if one of the legs is
determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of
the other requirements of proposed Rule 6.87.05(b) are met, all market
participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in
(d)(3). Again, however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one
party to a Complex Order transaction is a Customer, the transaction
will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price
higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the
Customer's limit price on the Complex Order or individual leg(s). Also,
if any leg of a Complex Order is nullified, the entire transaction is
nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Rule 6.87(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in
200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the
course of 2 minutes or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conforming Change To Eliminate Rule Regarding Complex Orders Obvious
Errors
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the rule text in paragraph
(c)(5) of the current rule, which addresses ``Complex Order Obvious
Errors,'' in light of the proposed addition of Commentary .05 to the
Rule. The Exchange proposed to designate Rule 6.87(c)(5) as
``Reserved.'' The Exchange believes this modification would add
clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Rule.
Implementation
    In order to ensure that the other options exchanges are able to
adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate
effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposed to delay
the operative date of this proposal to April 17, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\27\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are
seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule will provide greater transparency and clarity
with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options
transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve
consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while
maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and
protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \29\ in that the proposed rule will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating
adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the
benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade
completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by,
transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many
Participants, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of
executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge
altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest
of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between
Customers and non-Customers. As with the current rule, Customers are
treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This
treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not
necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less
likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option
throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading
accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S.
options markets generally there is significant retail customer
participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges
such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market
participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because
it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional
protections as compared to non-Customers.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to
adjust a Customer's execution price when a Complex Order is deemed to
be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A
Complex Order that executes against individual leg markets may receive
an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or
Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the Complex Order is
executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of
the fact that they have executed against a Complex Order or that the
Complex Order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange
believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible
because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other
securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in
these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants
are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.
    Finally, the proposal to delete paragraph (c)(5) of the current
rule, which addresses ``Complex Order Obvious Errors,'' would add would
add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Rule, in
light of the proposed addition of Commentary .05 to the Rule.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange 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. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes
that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a filing
submitted by CBOE that was recently approved by the Commission.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See CBOE Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on
intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on
competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all
options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The
Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is
an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all
options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible.
Particularly where a market participant trades on several different
exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly
simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a
consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment
of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options
exchanges that trade Complex Orders and/or Stock/Option Orders intend
to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all
market participants equally within each participant category (i.e.,
Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between
Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to
strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the
Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to
their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact
that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same
time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the
options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets
and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth
of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the
protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting
transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As
described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective
criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred
and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \31\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \33\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \34\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change by
April 17, 2017 in coordination with the other options exchanges.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \35\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-42 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-NYSEArca-2017-42. 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 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-NYSEArca-2017-42, and should be submitted on or before
May 17, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08390 Filed 4-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 60302]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23855]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4145-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4145-DR), dated September 14, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective: September 20, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 14, 2013.

    Arapahoe and Logan Counties for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-23855 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P