[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24807-24809]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09920]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72020; File No. SR-BATS-2014-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Institute an Incentive Program for Market Makers for BATS Exchange,
Inc.

April 25, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BATS'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to institute an incentive program for
market makers registered with the Exchange (``Market Makers'') \3\ in
ETPs \4\ listed on the Exchange (the ``LMM Program''). The Exchange has
designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided the
Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the
Act.\5\ The Exchange will implement the proposed rule change on a date
that will be circulated in a notice from the BATS Trade Desk.\6\ The
Exchange also intends to file a proposal to adopt the financial
incentives related to the LMM Program through a separate filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BATS Rule 11.5.
    \4\ As defined in proposed Rule 11.8(e)(1)(A), ETP means any
security listed pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \6\ The Exchange will file a separate proposal prior to
implementation of the proposed rule change in which it will add the
relevant pricing to its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 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 parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules
applicable to the qualification, listing and delisting of companies on
the Exchange.\7\ Shortly thereafter, the Exchange also received
approval to operate a program in which all BATS-listed securities
participate that is designed to incentivize certain Market Makers as
Competitive Liquidity Providers (``CLPs'') to enhance liquidity on the
Exchange in such BATS-listed securities (the ``CLP Program'') by
offering daily financial rebates to CLPs based on the size of their
quotes at the NBBO \8\ throughout the day.\9\ In order to provide
issuers with an additional option for enhancing liquidity in BATS-
listed ETPs and as a competitive response to liquidity enhancement
programs at other listing exchanges, the Exchange is proposing to
implement an additional program designed to incentivize certain Market
Makers that are willing to meet designated performance standards to
enhance liquidity on the Exchange in ETPs by providing enhanced rebates
to such Market Makers, the LMM Program, for executions in BATS-listed
ETPs, as further described below. As proposed, the LMM Program is
designed to incentivize select Market Makers to enter more aggressive
orders in BATS-listed ETPs by providing enhanced rebates for executions
in the BATS-listed ETP in which the Market Maker is registered as a
lead market maker (a ``LMM'') where the LMM meets certain performance
measurements designated by the Exchange. As proposed, a BATS-listed ETP
that is participating in the CLP Program would not be eligible for
participation in the LMM Program until and unless such ETP is no longer
participating in the CLP Program. Further, any ETP that is listed on
the Exchange after the implementation of the LMM Program will not be
eligible for participation in the CLP Program. Prior to the
implementation of the LMM Program, the Exchange intends to file a
proposal detailing changes to the current CLP Program along with a new
supplemental quoting incentive program in which ETPs participating in
the LMM program may also participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August 30, 2011), 76 FR
55148 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018).
    \8\ As defined in Rule 1.5(o), NBBO means the national best bid
or offer.
    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 66307 (February 2, 2012), 77 FR
6608 (February 8, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-051).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt rules that are similar to those
regarding the SEC approved NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') program for Lead
Market Makers \10\ (``Arca LMMs'') and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') program for Designated Liquidity Providers (``DLPs'').\11\
Under both programs, an Arca LMM for a security listed on Arca or a DLP
for a security listed on Nasdaq is required to maintain minimum
performance standards with regard to (i) percent of time at NBBO; (ii)
percent of executions better than the NBBO; (iii) average displayed
size; (iv) average quoted spread; and (v) in the case of derivative
securities listed on Arca, the ability of the Arca LMM to transact in
underlying markets. This list, however, is not exhaustive, so Nasdaq
(and BATS, as proposed and further discussed below) could apply any
additional minimum performance standards, including the ability of a
DLP to transact in underlying markets. Additionally, because Arca LMMs
and DLPs are required to be registered market makers, they must also
meet each respective exchange's requirements for being a market maker.
In return, an Arca LMM receives both enhanced rebates for adding
liquidity and reduced fees for removing liquidity and a DLP on Nasdaq
receives enhanced rebates for adding liquidity in their respective Arca
LMM or DLP security or securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Arca Rule 7.24 and NYSE Arca Schedule of Fees and
Charges for Exchange Services at https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees__for_2-1-14.pdf.
    \11\ See Nasdaq Rule 7018(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's proposed program, a Market Maker in an ETP may
become an LMM in an ETP. The Exchange anticipates providing enhanced
rebates and/or reduced fees for LMM executions in the LMM Security,\12\
subject to a separate fee filing. Under the LMM Program, an LMM is a
Market Maker in an ETP that has committed to maintain Minimum
Performance Standards.\13\ As is true under the Arca and Nasdaq
programs, such Minimum Performance Standards will vary between LMM
Securities depending on the price, liquidity, and volatility of the LMM
Security in which the LMM is registered and the relevant measurement
metrics will include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) Percent
of time at the NBBO; (ii) percent of executions better than the NBBO;
(iii) average displayed size; and (iv) average quoted spread. If an LMM
does not meet the Minimum Performance Standards for a given month, fees
and credits will revert to standard equities pricing, as provided in
the Exchange's fee schedule. If an LMM does not meet the Minimum
Performance Standards for three out of the past four months, the LMM is
subject to forfeiture of LMM status for that LMM Security, at the
Exchange's discretion. An LMM must provide 30 days written notice if it
wishes to withdraw its registration as an LMM in an LMM Security,
unless it is also withdrawing as a market maker in the LMM Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in proposed Rule 11.8(e)(1)(C), LMM Security
means an ETP that has an LMM.
    \13\ As defined in proposed Rule 11.8(e)(1)(D), Minimum
Performance Standards means a set of standards applicable to an LMM
that may be determined from time to time by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is true under the Arca and Nasdaq programs, after indicating
interest in being an LMM for an ETP, a Market Maker will be selected by
the Exchange to be an LMM based on factors including, but not limited
to, experience with making markets in ETPs, adequacy of capital,
willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace, issuer
preference, operational capacity, support personnel, and history of
adherence to Exchange rules and securities laws. As is true under the
Nasdaq program, the Exchange may limit the number of LMMs in a
particular security, or modify a previously established limit, upon
prior written notice to Members. Specifically, the Exchange may modify
a limit either to increase or decrease the number of LMMs for a
security upon providing such prior written notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in that it is designed
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. At the outset, the Exchange notes that registration as
an Exchange Market Maker is equally available to all Members that
satisfy the requirements of Rule 11.8 and that LMMs will be chosen
based on the pre-determined factors described in the proposed rule. The
Exchange believes

that by allocating pricing benefits to Market Makers that make tangible
commitments to enhancing market quality for BATS-listed ETPs, the
proposal will encourage the development of new financial products,
provide a better trading environment for investors in ETPs, and
encourage greater competition between listing venues for ETPs. The
Exchange also believes that the proposal will promote tighter spreads
and deeper liquidity for all market participants by requiring LMMs to
meet Minimum Performance Standards for an LMM Security based on percent
of time at the NBBO, percent of executions better than the NBBO,
average displayed size, and average quoted spread, plus any other
metric that the Exchange deems appropriate for measuring performance in
a particular LMM Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the LMM Program is designed to enhance the Exchange's
competitiveness as a listing venue and to strengthen its market quality
for BATS-listed ETPs. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
would increase competition with Arca and Nasdaq by incenting Exchange
Market Makers to apply to become LMMs, which will enhance the quality
of quoting in BATS-listed ETPs. The Exchange also believes that the LMM
Program will further assist the Exchange to develop an alternative to
Nasdaq and the Arca for an issuer seeking to list its ETPs.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal will complement
the Exchange's program for listing ETPs on the Exchange, which will, in
turn, provide issuers with another option for listing an ETP on the
public markets, thereby promoting the principles discussed in Section
6(b)(5) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. In
this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule
change is being proposed as a competitive offering to the Arca LMM
program currently in place at Arca and the DLP program in place at
Nasdaq. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is
necessary to permit fair competition among the listing exchanges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes as a whole
will contribute to tighter spreads and additional liquidity on the
Exchange in BATS-listed ETPs, which will, in turn, benefit competition
due to the improvements to the overall market quality of the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange has 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

    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, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2014-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2014-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2014-015 and should be
submitted on or before May 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09920 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To:	Heidi King<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc:	Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	01/22/2010 10:33 PM

Subject:	Fw: Updated version of the NO2 final notice

Here's the track changes version.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21186-21187]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2004-19999]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
received on January 18, 2013, the Fayette Central Railroad (FCRV) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a an extension
of a waiver of compliance in Docket Number FRA-2004-19999. FCRV seeks
to extend a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 223, Safety Glazing Standards-Locomotives,
Passenger Cars and Cabooses, which requires certified glazing in
locomotive and caboose windows. FRA issued the initial waiver that
granted FCRV relief on September 6, 2005, and FRA extended the waiver
on June 12, 2008. The existing waiver will expire on June 11, 2013.
    Specifically, FCRV seeks to extend a waiver of compliance for two
cabooses, Car Numbers PC 18086 (built in 1946) and P&LE 504 (built in
1956), as well as one locomotive, Locomotive Number 9061 (built in
1948).
    FCRV states that it operates in a rural area and does not operate
through any intercity areas. Additionally, FCRV's operations are
temporally separated from freight operations. There is no location or
time where another train will be passing a FCRV train; therefore, there
is no danger of a rock or debris being thrown up from a passing train.
The maximum speed on the track over which FCRV operates is 15 mph.
Finally, there have never been any incidents of people shooting at
FCRV's trains.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 24, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association,

business, labor union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov or interested
parties may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-08247 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 22, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13364

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. filed 8/31/04 for:

XX Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) Detroit, Michigan, and Nassau, the Bahamas and (2) Memphis,
Tennessee, and Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, as well as integration
authority to combine this exemption authority with Continental’s
existing exemption and certificate authority.  Continental states that
it uses this authority pursuant to a code-share arrangement with
Northwest, whereby Continental places its “CO” code on Northwest’s
seasonal flights in each of the subject markets listed.

Applicant rep:  R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: October 22, 2004, through
October 22, 2006.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The U.S.-Bahamas authority granted is consistent with the overall
state of aviation relations between the United States and The Bahamas.
The U.S.-Cayman Islands authority granted is consistent with the
aviation agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

Conditions:  The code-share operations conducted under this authority
must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the
Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may
be adopted. Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the
carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the
requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the
name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(ie., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and (2) the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither Continental nor
Northwest shall give any force or effect to any contractual provisions
between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
Continental rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond
rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless
Continental notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights); (b) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
Continental’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being used by Continental, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Continental in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 Continental states that it does not seek to renew its authority between
Memphis and Puerto Vallarta since Northwest is not currently providing
service on that route.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57206-57209]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3065]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette
Packages and Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the

Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information
entitled, ``Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages
and Advertisements.''

DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of
information must be submitted by November 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. eastern time at the end of November 18, 2022. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-3065 for ``Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette
Packages and Advertisements.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and
Advertisements--21 CFR Part 1141

OMB Control Number 0910-0877--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA regulations and guidance.
Tobacco products are generally governed by chapter IX of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387
through 21 U.S.C. 387t).
    On March 18, 2020, FDA issued a final rule establishing new
cigarette health warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements
entitled ``Tobacco

Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements''
(85 FR 15638; https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-05223). The final
rule implements a provision of the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) that
requires FDA to issue regulations requiring color graphics depicting
the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany new textual
warning label statements. The Tobacco Control Act amends the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (FCLAA) (15 U.S.C. 1333)
to require each cigarette package and advertisement to bear one of the
new required warnings. The final rule specifies the 11 new textual
warning label statements and accompanying color graphics.
    Section 1141.10(g) (21 CFR 1141.10(g) and section 4(c) of the FCLAA
sets forth the specific marketing requirements relating to the random
and equal display and distribution of required warnings on cigarette
packaging and quarterly rotation of required warnings in alternating
sequence in cigarette advertising and requires the submission of plans
outlining how the cigarette packaging and advertising will comply with
such requirements. FDA must review and approve cigarette plans in
advance of any person displaying or distributing cigarette packages or
advertisements for products that are required to carry the required
warnings, and a record of the FDA-approved plan must be established and
maintained by the tobacco product manufacturer.
    To implement these statutory and regulatory requirements, cigarette
plans will be reviewed by FDA upon submission by respondents. FDA
published a guidance document on July 9, 2021, entitled ``Submission of
Plans for Cigarette Packages and Cigarette Advertisements'' which
describes cigarette plans information, format and submission (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/submission-plans-cigarette-packages-and-cigarette-advertisements-revised).
    Pursuant to section 201(b) of the Tobacco Control Act, FDA
finalized the ``Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and
Advertisements'' rule with an effective date of June 18, 2021, 15
months after the date of publication. On April 3, 2020, the final rule
was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas.\1\ The effective date of the final rule has been delayed in
accordance with orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas. Visit FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/cigarette-labeling-and-health-warning-requirements for updates
regarding the effective date of the rule and related timelines,
including the recommended date for submitting cigarette plans for FDA
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States Food and
Drug Administration et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex. filed April
3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                  Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
     Part 1141 and activity          Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Submission (Initial                  59               1              59             150           8,850
 Plan)..........................
Supplement......................              30               1              30              75           2,250
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          11,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden estimates are based on FDA's experience with information
collections for other tobacco product plans (i.e., smokeless, OMB
control number 0910-0671 and cigars, OMB control number 0910-0768) and
2017 Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau data.
    FDA estimates 59 entities are affected. We estimate these 59
entities will submit initial plans, and it will take an average of 150
hours per respondent to prepare and submit a plan for packaging and
advertising for a total of 8,850 hours. We estimate that about half of
respondents will submit a supplement. If a supplement to an approved
plan is submitted, FDA estimates it will take half the time per
response. We estimate receiving 30 supplements at 75 hours per response
for a total of 2,250 hours. FDA estimates that the total hours for
submitting initial plans and supplements will be 11,100.
    Section 1141.10(g)(4) establishes that each tobacco product
manufacturer required to randomly and equally display and distribute
warnings on cigarette packages or quarterly rotate warnings in
cigarette advertisements in accordance with an FDA-approved plan under
section 4 of the FCLAA and part 1141 must maintain a copy of the FDA-
approved plan (approved under Sec.  1141.10(g)(3)). This copy of such
FDA-approved plan must be available for inspection and copying by
officers or employees of FDA. This subsection requires that the FDA-
approved plan must be retained while in effect and for a period of not
less than 4 years from the date it was last in effect.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden
     Part 1141 and activity          Number of      records per    Total annual         per         Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Submission (Initial                  59             1.5              89               3             267
 Plan) Records..................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA estimates that 59 recordkeepers will keep a total of about 89
records at 3 hours per record for a total of 267 hours. As stated
previously, these estimates are based on FDA's experience with
information collections for other tobacco product plans (i.e.,
smokeless, OMB control number 0910-0671 and cigars, OMB control number
0910-0768). Based on our estimates for the submission of one-time,
initial plans and supplements (i.e., that all respondents will submit
one-time, initial plans and about half of respondents will submit
supplements to FDA-approved plans), we estimate that each recordkeeper
will keep an average of 1.5 records.
    FDA concludes that the required warnings for cigarette packages and
cigarette advertisements in Sec.  1141.10 are not subject to review by
OMB because they do not constitute a ``collection of information''
under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Rather, these labeling statements
are a ``public disclosure'' of information originally supplied by the
Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of ``disclosure to
the public'' (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
    Since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no
adjustments to our burden estimate.

    Dated: September 14, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-20196 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73452-73458]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25713]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79125; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, To Amend
Certain Rules Related to Flexible Exchange Options

October 19, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or the ``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
amend certain rules related to Flexible Exchange (``FLEX'') Options.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 21, 2016.\3\ On August 30, 2016, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On August 31, 2016,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On
September 27, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change, which superseded and replaced Amendment No. 1.\6\ On

October 19, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comment on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed rule change from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78348 (July 15,
2016), 81 FR 47469 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78744 (August 31,
2016), 81 FR 61725 (September 7, 2016). The Commission designated
October 19, 2016 as the date by which it shall approve, disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Provided greater
clarity regarding the operation of FLEX Binary Return Derivatives
contracts (``ByRDs''), including specifying position limits
applicable to FLEX ByRDs and indicating that FLEX ByRDs will be
settled using VWAP settlement and European exercise style; (2)
specified that Asian and Cliquet style settlement will be available
for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups; (3) clarified
that VWAP settlement will be available for FLEX Equity Options; and
(4) removed its proposal to allow cash settlement of FLEX Options.
Amendment No. 2 is available at the Exchange's Web site and at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2016-48/nysemkt201648-2.pdf.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange removed its proposal to
allow VWAP settlement of FLEX Equity Options generally, although
VWAP settlement would still be used for FLEX ByRDs. Amendment No. 3
is available at the Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3

    FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow
investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index
options.\8\ The Exchange has proposed to modify the rules relating to
FLEX Options to allow FLEX Options in ByRDs, make available additional
settlement styles, modify how exercise prices and premiums are
expressed, change certain provisions relating to floor-based trading,
and modify other related provisions pertaining to FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 900G(b)(1) (defining ``FLEX Option''). See
generally Section 15, Flexible Exchange Options, Rules 900G-909G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. FLEX ByRDs

    The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to trade
FLEX options contracts in ByRDs. ByRDs are option contracts that have a
fixed return in cash based on a set strike price and that may only be
exercised at expiration pursuant to the Rules of the Options Clearing
Corporation.\9\ ByRDs may be issued on individual stocks, Exchange-
Traded Fund Shares, and Section 107 Securities, and must satisfy
heightened listing standards.\10\ ByRDs are settled using a settlement
price calculated from the all-day Volume-Weighted Average Price of the
composite prices of the underlying security on the expiration date
(``VWAP'') and using a European exercise style.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 900ByRDs(b)(1).
    \10\ See Rule 915ByRDs. For a description of ``Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares'' and ``Section 107 Securities,'' see also Rule 915,
Commentaries .06 and .11.
    \11\ See Rules 900ByRDs (b)(1), 910ByRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the use of FLEX ByRDs,\12\ market participants would be
able to trade ByRDs with non-standard exercise prices, non-standard
expiration dates, or both. FLEX ByRDs would be settled in the same
manner as ByRDs, with all-day VWAP settlement and European exercise
style.\13\ The Exchange would establish position limits for FLEX ByRDs
that are the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs, as set forth in Rule 904ByRDs(a),
although positions in FLEX ByRDs would be aggregated with positions in
Non-FLEX ByRDs on the same or similar underlying for the purpose of
calculating position limits.\14\ The Exchange stated that, in its view,
FLEX ByRDs would enable market participants to negotiate terms that
differ from standardized ByRDs and thereby provide greater
opportunities for investors to manage risk through the use of FLEX
Options.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Proposed Rule 900G(b)(17) would define ``FLEX ByRDs'' to
mean ``a Binary Return Derivatives contract on any ByRDs-eligible
underlying security that is subject to the rules in this Section.''
Proposed Rule 900G(b)(22) would define ``Non-FLEX ByRDs'' to mean
``a Non-FLEX Option that is a Binary Return Derivatives contract.''
Proposed Rule 900G(b)(16) would revise the definition of ``Series of
FLEX Options'' to provide that a such a series would consist of,
``in the case of FLEX ByRDs, all such option contracts of the same
class having the same expiration date, strike price, and exercise
settlement amount.''
    \13\ See proposed Rule 903G(c)(3)(ii). Proposed Rule
903G(c)(3)(i) would specify that settlement by physical delivery of
the underlying security would apply to FLEX Equity Options other
than FLEX ByRDs. See also Amendment No. 2, at 6. ``FLEX Equity
Option'' is defined in Rule 900G(b)(10).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 906G(b)(ii). For purposes of these
position limits, long positions in ``Finish Low'' and short
positions in ``Finish High'' ByRDs would be considered to be on the
same side of the market; and short positions in ``Finish Low'' and
long positions in ``Finish High'' ByRDs would be considered to be on
the same side of the market. See id.
    \15\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternative Settlement Styles: Asian and Cliquet

    The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to designate
Asian or Cliquet settlement styles for FLEX Index Options on broad
stock index groups.\16\ In its filing, the Exchange noted that these
settlement styles are currently offered by another options
exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment No. 2, at 4. ``FLEX Index Option'' is defined
in Rule 900G(b)(11). A ``broad stock index group'' is ``a stock
index which reflects representative stock market values or prices of
. . . a broad segment of the stock market.'' Rule 900C(b)(1). See
also Rule 901C, Commentary .02 (specifying conditions that must be
satisfied to trade options on a broad stock index group). Asian and
Cliquet settlement styles would not be available for FLEX ByRDs. See
Amendment No. 2, at 4-5, n. 9. The Commission notes that the
Exchange has agreed file a proposed rule change to provide
additional clarity to several aspects of the rule. None of these
changes impact the Commission's analysis of this proposed rule
change.
    \17\ See Amendment No. 2, at 4 (citing Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Rules 24A.1, 24A.4, 24B.1, 24B.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Asian Style Settlement
    FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Asian style
settlement would be cash-settled call \18\ option contracts for which
the final payout would be based on an arithmetic average of specified
closing prices of an underlying broad stock index group taken on twelve
predetermined monthly observation dates, including the expiration date
(``Asian option'').\19\ Asian options would use a ``preceding business
day convention,'' such that if the monthly observation date falls on a
non-NYSE MKT business day, the monthly observation date would be the
immediately preceding business day.\20\ Asian options would have a term
of approximately one year, ranging from 350 to 371 days from the date
of initial listing.\21\ The contract multiplier would be determined in
accordance with Rule 900G(b)(12) and, for Asian options that settle in
U.S. Dollars, would be $100.\22\ The exercise settlement amount would
be the difference between the designated strike price and the observed
average closing price.\23\ Given that settlement value would be
determined by observations taken over a 12-month period, Asian options
would require the use of European exercise style.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Puts would not be permitted. See proposed Rule 903G(b)(4).
    \19\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18) (defining ``Asian style
settlement''); proposed Rule 903G(b)(4) (specifying terms for Asian
options).
    \20\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18).
    \21\ See proposed Rule 903G(b)(4).
    \22\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470; Rule 900G(b)(12).
    \23\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.
    \24\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of an
Asian option that expires in-the-money. On January 21, 2015, an
investor hedging the value of XYZ Index over a year purchases an Asian
FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a strike price of
2000 and a contract multiplier of $100. The option has monthly
observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Monthly observation date \25\           XYZ Index closing value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-Feb-15..................................                      2025.36
23-Mar-15..................................                      2049.34
23-Apr-15..................................                      2019.77
22-May-15..................................                      1989.65
23-Jun-15..................................                      2005.64
23-Jul-15..................................                      2035.10
21-Aug-15..................................                      2032.15
23-Sep-15..................................                      2076.18
23-Oct-15..................................                      2099.01
23-Nov-15..................................                      2109.32
23-Dec-15..................................                      2085.42
22-Jan-16..................................                      2084.81
Exercise (Averaged) Settlement Value.......       24,611.75/12 = 2050.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, the exercise settlement amount would be $5,098.
This amount would be determined by adding the 12 observed closing
values for the XYZ index and dividing that amount by 12 (24,611.75/12),
which is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded). The payout would be the
difference between the exercise (averaged) settlement value and the
strike price (2050.98-2000 = 50.98) multiplied by the contract
multiplier (50.98 x $100 = $5,098). If alternatively, in the above
example, the strike price was 2060, the contract would have expired
out-of-the money. The option would not be exercised and would expire
worthless because the strike price of 2060 would be more than the
2050.98 exercise settlement value.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Note that May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015 fell on a
weekend or holiday, so the business days immediately preceding those
dates were used as the monthly observation dates.
    \26\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cliquet Style Settlement
    FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Cliquet style
settlement would be cash-settled call \27\ option contracts for which
the final payout would be based on the greater of $0 or the sum of
monthly returns (i.e., percent changes in the closing value of the
underlying broad stock index group from one month to the next), subject
to a monthly return ``cap'' (e.g., 3%), applied over twelve monthly
observation dates (``Cliquet option'').\28\ Cliquet options would use a
preceding business day convention and have a term of approximately one
year, ranging from 350 to 371 days from the date of initial
listing.\29\ The contract multiplier would be determined in accordance
with Rule 900G(b)(12) and, for Cliquet options that settle in U.S.
Dollars, would be $100.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Puts would not be permitted. See proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).
    \28\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19) (defining ``Cliquet style
settlement''); proposed Rule 903(G)(b)(5) (specifying terms for
Cliquet options).
    \29\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19); proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).
    \30\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470; Rule 900G(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a set of monthly
observation dates for each contract and an expiration date for each
contract. The monthly observation date would be the date each month on
which the closing price of the underlying broad stock index group would
be observed for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement
value. In addition, the parties to a Cliquet option would designate a
capped monthly return (i.e., percent change in the closing values of
the underlying broad stock index group from one month to the next
month) for the contract, which would be the maximum monthly return that
would be included in the calculation of the exercise settlement value
for the contract. On each monthly observation date, the Exchange would
determine the actual monthly return by computing the percent change
between the closing value of the broad stock index group on the current
monthly observation date versus its closing value on the previous
monthly observation date. The Exchange would then compare the actual
monthly return to the capped monthly return. The value used as the
monthly return for a Cliquet option would be the lesser of the actual
monthly return or the capped monthly return.
    For example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad
stock index group was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return
for a Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be utilized (and not
the 2%) as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise
settlement value. Using this same example, if the actual monthly return
of the underlying broad stock index group was 3.30%, the 2% value would
be utilized (and not the 3.30%) as the value of the observation date to
determine the exercise settlement value. This latter example
illustrates that Cliquet options have a capped upside. Cliquet options
do not, however, have a capped downside for the monthly return that
would be utilized in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing
on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying
broad stock index group was -4.07%, the -4.07% value would be utilized
as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise
settlement value. There would, however, be a floor for all Cliquet
options in that if the sum of the monthly returns is negative, a
Cliquet option would expire worthless.
    Unlike other options, Cliquet options would not have a traditional
exercise (strike) price. Rather, the exercise (strike) price field for
a Cliquet option would represent the designated capped monthly return
for the contract and would be expressed in dollars and cents. For
example, a capped monthly return of 2.25% would be represented by the
dollar amount of $2.25. The ``strike'' price for a Cliquet option could
only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the ``strike'' price
for a Cliquet option could only span a range between $0.05 and
$25.95.\31\ In addition, the ``strike'' price for a Cliquet option
could only be designated in $0.05 increments, e.g., $1.75, $2.50,
$4.15.\32\ Increments of $0.01 in the ``strike'' price field
(representing the capped monthly return) would not be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first ``monthly'' return for a Cliquet option would be based on
the initial reference value, which would be the closing value of the
underlying broad stock index group on the date a new Cliquet option is
listed. The time period measured for the first ``monthly'' return would
be between the initial listing date and the first monthly observation
date. For example, if a

Cliquet option was opened on January 1 and the parties designated the
31st of each month as the monthly observation date, the measurement
period for the first monthly return would span the time period from
January 1 to January 31. The time period measured for the second
monthly return, and all subsequent monthly returns, would run from the
31st of one month to the 31st of the next month (or the last Exchange
business day of each month depending on the actual number of calendar
days in each month covered by the contract).
    Cliquet options would have European exercise style and could not be
exercised prior to the expiration date.\33\ The exercise settlement
value for Cliquet options would be equal to the initial reference price
of the underlying broad stock index group multiplied by the sum of the
monthly returns (with the cap applied) on the 12 consecutive monthly
observation dates, which include the expiration date of the option,
provided that the sum is greater than 0. If the sum of the monthly
returns (with the applied cap) is 0 or less, the option would expire
worthless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of a
Cliquet option. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of
XYZ Index over a year purchases a Cliquet FLEX call option expiring on
January 22, 2016 with a capped monthly return of 2% and a contract
multiplier of $100. The initial reference price of XYZ Index (closing
value) on January 21, 2015 is 2000. The option has monthly observation
dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Note that May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015 fell on a
weekend or holiday, so the business days immediately preceding those
dates were used as the monthly observation dates.
    \35\ Note that on September 23, 2015, the observed actual
monthly return was 2.17%. Because the actual monthly return exceeded
the 2% cap, the calculation utilized a capped monthly return of 2%
for this observation date.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Actual monthly  Capped monthly  Sum of monthly
          Monthly observation date \34\              XYZ Index        return          return          returns
                                                   closing value     (percent)    (percent) \35\     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-Feb-15.......................................         2025.36            1.27            1.27            1.27
23-Mar-15.......................................         2049.34            1.18            1.18            2.45
23-Apr-15.......................................         2019.77           -1.44           -1.44            1.01
22-May-15.......................................         1989.65           -1.49           -1.49           -0.48
23-Jun-15.......................................         2005.64            0.80            0.80            0.32
23-Jul-15.......................................         2035.10            1.47            1.47            1.79
21-Aug-15.......................................         2032.15           -0.14           -0.14            1.65
23-Sep-15.......................................         2076.18            2.17            2.00            3.65
23-Oct-15.......................................         2099.01            1.10            1.10            4.75
23-Nov-15.......................................         2109.32            0.49            0.49            5.24
23-Dec-15.......................................         2085.42           -1.13           -1.13            4.11
22-Jan-16.......................................         2084.81           -0.03           -0.03            4.08
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Exercise Settlement Value.......................                   (4.08% * 2000.00) + 2 = 83.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, the exercise settlement amount would be $8,160.
This amount would be determined by adding the capped monthly return for
the XYZ Index on the 12 monthly observation dates, multiplying that
amount by the initial reference price (4.08% * 2000 = 81.60) and adding
that amount to the strike price \36\ (81.60 + 2 = 83.60), to arrive at
an Exercise Settlement Value (``ESV'') that is the greater of zero (0)
or the result of this calculation (83.60). Having determined the ESV,
the payout at expiration would be based upon how much the ESV exceeds
the strike price, similar to options that utilize standard settlement
styles. Therefore the payout would be the amount by which the ESV
exceeds the strike price (83.60 - 2 = 81.60), multiplied by the
contract multiplier (81.60 x $100 = $8,160). In contrast, if the sum of
the capped monthly returns had been negative, this option would have
expired worthless.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The ``strike price'' for a Cliquet option would be
determined by the agreed upon capped monthly return, which in this
example is 2%.
    \37\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47470-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Surveillance for Asian and Cliquet Options
    The Exchange stated that it would utilize the same procedures for
FLEX Options utilizing the proposed settlement styles as it currently
utilizes for other FLEX Options with standard settlement. The Exchange
also represented that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to
monitor trading in these options products. The Exchange noted that, for
surveillance purposes, it would have access to information regarding
trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id. at 47472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Exercise Prices and Premiums

    The Exchange has proposed to modify how market participants may
express exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Options. The Exchange
noted that these modifications reflect changes in the marketplace and a
move towards decimalization. The Exchange explained that when it
adopted its rules for FLEX Options, strike prices were designated in
one-eighth of a dollar and options were priced in fractions of a
dollar, whereas now certain Exchange rules have been revised to reflect
the decimal equivalent of the previously approved fractional
amount.\39\ With respect to FLEX Equity Options, proposed Rule
903G(c)(2) would provide that exercise prices and premiums may be
stated in terms of (i) a dollar amount; (ii) a method for fixing such a
number at the time a FLEX Request for Quote or FLEX Order is traded; or
(iii) a percentage of the price of the underlying security at the time
of the trade or as of the close of trading on the Exchange on the trade
date. The Exchange explained that this change would align the
Exchange's treatment of FLEX Equity Options with its treatment of FLEX
Index Options and also be consistent with the rules of another options
exchange.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id. (citing CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2), (c)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, with respect to both FLEX Index Options and FLEX
Equity Options, proposed Rule 903G(b)(1) and (c)(2) would provide that
exercise prices

may be rounded to the nearest minimum tick or other decimal increment
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis that may not be
smaller than $0.01 and exercise premiums will be rounded to the nearest
minimum tick. Additionally, for exercise prices and premiums stated
using a percentage based methodology, such values may be stated in a
percentage increment determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class
basis that may not be smaller than 0.01% and will be rounded as
described above.\41\ The Exchange noted that this proposed change is
consistent with the rules of another options exchange.\42\ Finally, the
Exchange proposed to remove a reference to fractional pricing from Rule
903G(a)(3)(i).\43\ The Exchange stated that, in its view, this change
would provide market participants with greater flexibility to create an
options contract tailored to an investor's needs.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed Rule 903G(b)(1), (c)(2).
    \42\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47472 (citing CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2),
(c)(2)).
    \43\ See proposed Rule 903G(a)(3)(i).
    \44\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. FLEX Officials and Trading Posts

    Currently under the FLEX rules, the FLEX Specialist is responsible
for handling various aspects of FLEX Options, including receiving and
displaying the terms of Requests for Quotes. The Exchange has proposed
to delete these references to a FLEX Specialist and replace them with a
floor official, to be known as a ``FLEX Official.''\45\ A ``FLEX
Official'' would be an Exchange employee that has regulatory
responsibility for reviewing FLEX trades for adherence to the terms and
specifications in the FLEX rules.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See proposed Rule 904G(a)(i)-(ii).
    \46\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47472-73. Proposed Rule 900G(b)(21)
would define ``FLEX Official'' as ``an Exchange employee designated
to perform the FLEX Official functions set forth in Rule 910G.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange would be able, at any time, to
designate an Exchange employee to act as a FLEX Official in one or more
classes of FLEX Options and to designate other qualified employees to
assist the FLEX Official as needed.\47\ This FLEX Official would be
responsible for: (i) Reviewing the conforming of FLEX Requests for
Quotes and FLEX Quotes to the terms and specifications contained in
Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX Options); (ii) posting FLEX Requests for
Quotes for dissemination; (iii) determining the BBO; (iv) ensuring that
FLEX contracts are executed in conformance with the priority principles
set forth in Rule 904G (FLEX Trading Procedures and Principles); and
(v) calling upon Specialists to make FLEX Quotes in specific classes of
FLEX Equity Options as provided in Rule 927NY(c), which sets forth the
obligations of Specialists.\48\ The Exchange noted that these
provisions relating to a FLEX Official are consistent with the rules of
another options exchange that trades FLEX Options.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See proposed Rule 910G(a).
    \48\ See proposed Rule 910G(b). The Exchange also proposed to
make a conforming change to change a reference from ``FLEX Post
Official'' to ``FLEX Official.'' See proposed Rule 927NY(c)(7).
    \49\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47472-73 (citing NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSEArca'') Rules 5.30(b)(7), 5.38 (defining role of FLEX Post
Official)). See also CBOE Rule 24A.5(a)(i), (ii) (specifying role of
FLEX Post Official in handling Requests for Quotes); CBOE Rule
24A.12(b) (setting forth duties of FLEX Official).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to revise its rules to
reflect that in its current trading environment, FLEX Requests for
Quotes and FLEX Quotes are ``disseminated,'' rather than ``displayed.''
\50\ The Exchange explained that at the time when it introduced FLEX
Options, the Exchange displayed FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX
Quotes at physical FLEX posts. However, according to the Exchange, as
FLEX Option trading gained in popularity, it became apparent that
liquidity for FLEX Options was more readily available at the trading
posts where the standard options in the underlying security traded,
rather than the specific FLEX post. The Exchange explained that, over
time, floor participants asked floor brokers to use various means to
communicate the existence of trading interest.\51\ Additionally, the
Exchange has proposed to remove the modifier ``FLEX'' from before
``post'' in Rule 904G(b)(i) because there are no longer specific
physical FLEX posts on the trading floor.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See proposed Rule 904G(a)(ii), (c)(i)-(iii).
    \51\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47473. The Commission notes that the
Exchange has represented that dissemination will permit market
participants to transmit required information widely, including
through wireless communications, cellular telephones, instant
messaging, and other Exchange-approved communication devices. The
Commission expects that the Exchange will properly surveil the use
of such communications.
    \52\ See proposed Rule 904G(b)(i). The Exchange also proposed to
make a non-substantive change to Rule 904G(c)(ii) to replace a colon
with a semi-colon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Additional Changes

    The Exchange has proposed several additional modifications to the
FLEX Options Rules. First, the Exchange has proposed to amend the title
of Section 15 to add the abbreviation ``FLEX.'' \53\ In addition, the
Exchange has proposed to replace references to ``Registered Options
Traders'' in the FLEX rules with the term ``Floor Market Makers.'' \54\
The Exchange explained that this change in terminology is consistent
with a recent rule change approved by the Commission.\55\ Further, the
Exchange has proposed to remove obsolete references to Deutsche Marks
and French Francs because these foreign currencies are no longer in
circulation.\56\ Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to modify Rule
909G(c) to update a cross-reference to rules pertaining to specialists'
financial requirements by adding a reference to Rule 927NY(c)(1) and
removing obsolete references to Rule 171 and Rule 950(h).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See proposed Section 15. The Exchange has also proposed to
delete an extraneous ``t'' from the word ``the'' in Rule 900G(a).
    \54\ See proposed Rules 900G(b)(4), 906G(a)(iv) and (b), 908G,
909G (updating title), and 909G(b).
    \55\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9843, 9843 n.11 (March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14)
(noting that Exchange had indicated that Rules 900G through 909G
would become outdated upon approval of the described rules and the
Exchange represented it would review these rules and submit a
separate filing to revise any outdated references).
    \56\ See proposed Rules 900G(b)(12), 903G(b)(3), 904G(g). See
also Notice, 81 FR at 47473. The Exchange also proposed to make non-
substantive changes to certain references to British Pounds. See
proposed Rules 900G(b)(12), 904G(g).
    \57\ See proposed Rule 909G(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has proposed to clarify that each FLEX Request
for Quotes or FLEX contract must contain, as a contract term, either
the underlying security in the case of FLEX Equity Options or (rather
than ``and'') an underlying index in the case of FLEX Index
Options.\58\ In addition, the Exchange has proposed to make a non-
substantive change to Rule 903G(c)(4) to clarify the reference to Rule
805 of the Options Clearing Corporation.\59\ Moreover, the Exchange has
proposed to clarify that the minimum value size of one contract for
FLEX Options applies to quotations, in addition to the transactions
specified in the current rule text.\60\ Finally, the Exchange has
proposed that FLEX Options will be permitted in puts and calls that do
not have the same settlement style.\61\ The Exchange explained that it
does not allow trading of a FLEX Option that has the exact same terms
as a Non-FLEX

Option, but that if the option's underlying security, exercise style,
expiration date, exercise price, or, as proposed, settlement style
differs then it may be traded as a FLEX Option.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See proposed Rule 903G(a)(2)(i).
    \59\ See proposed Rule 903G(c)(4).
    \60\ See proposed Rule 903G(a)(2)(vii). The Exchange explained
that this proposed change aligns the rule text with the Commission's
adoption on a permanent basis of a pilot program regarding minimum
value sizes for opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options
and FLEX Quotes. See Notice, 81 FR at 47473 (citing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 72536 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR 39425 (July 10,
2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-21)).
    \61\ See proposed Rule 903G, Commentary .01.
    \62\ See Notice, 81 FR at 47473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\63\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\64\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed several amendments to its rules related
to FLEX Options. These amendments modify rules related to FLEX Options
to offer new alternative terms for FLEX Options and to update rule text
to more accurately reflect trading in FLEX Options on the Exchange. As
is discussed in more detail below, the Commission finds these changes
consistent with the Act.
    The proposal to allow ByRDs to trade as FLEX Equity Options on NYSE
MKT will allow market participants to flex strike prices and expiration
dates and thus obtain strike prices and expiration dates that are not
available in the standardized market on the Exchange in ByRDs. In its
approval order originally approving ByRDs for Exchange trading, the
Commission noted that the heightened initial and continued listing
standards, as well the settlement price based on an all-day VWAP, were
reasonably designed to address potential manipulation concerns.\65\
Similarly, the Commission believes that specifying that FLEX ByRDs can
only be traded on ByRDs-eligible underlying securities that meet the
same heightened initial and continued listing standards as ByRDs,
thereby helping to ensure that only highly capitalized, actively traded
stocks and ETFs will underlie cash-settled FLEX ByRDs, as well as
requiring settlement based on all-day VWAP (as required for
standardized ByRDs), should help to mitigate concerns about
manipulation in the underlying security to benefit a position in FLEX
ByRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56251 (August 14,
2007), 72 FR 46523, 76524 (August 20, 2007) (SR-Amex-2004-27)
(``ByRDs Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that establishing position limits for
FLEX ByRDs to be the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs position limits, which are
currently 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market,\66\ and
aggregating positions in Flex ByRDs with Non-FLEX ByRDs on the same or
similar underlying security for purposes of calculating position limits
is reasonable and consistent with the Act. In approving position limits
for ByRDs, the Commission noted that these position limits appeared to
reasonably balance the promotion of a free and open market for these
securities with minimization of incentives for market manipulation.\67\
By establishing the same position limits for FLEX ByRDs as for Non-FLEX
ByRDs and, importantly, aggregating such positions on the same side of
the market,\68\ the Commission similarly believes that the position
limit requirements for FLEX ByRDs should help to ensure that the
trading of FLEX ByRDs on the Exchange will not increase the potential
for manipulation and could help to minimize such incentives. Finally,
as noted above, because FLEX ByRDs must, like standardized ByRDs, be
cash settled, European-style exercise, with a settlement price based on
an all-day VWAP (and meet heightened listing and continued listing
standards), unlike other FLEX Options, the only non-standardized terms
that can be flexed are strike prices and expiration dates. The
Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it will be able
to adequately surveil trading in FLEX ByRDs utilizing existing
surveillance procedures pertaining to Non-FLEX ByRDs and FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The exercise limits for FLEX ByRDs will be equivalent to
the position limits for FLEX ByRDs described in Rule 906G(b)(ii).
See Rule 907G.
    \67\ See ByRDs Order, 72 FR at 76525.
    \68\ For purposes of these position limits, long positions in
``Finish Low'' and short positions in ``Finish High'' ByRDs would be
considered to be on the same side of the market; and short positions
in ``Finish Low'' and long positions in ``Finish High'' ByRDs would
be considered to be on the same side of the market. See proposed
Rule 906G(b)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Asian and Cliquet style
settlements for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups may
provide investors with additional trading and hedging tools. The
Commission also believes that the Exchange's proposal to allow Asian
and Cliquet style settlement for FLEX Index Options on broad stock
index groups may give investors and other market participants the
ability to individually tailor, within specified limits, certain terms
of those options. Furthermore, the Commission believes that, since both
Asian and Cliquet settlement styles depend on multiple measurements in
determining the settlement value, both settlement styles could help to
mitigate the potential for manipulation in the underlying
security(ies).
    The Commission notes that the Exchange would use the same
surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's FLEX
Options with standard settlement to monitor trading in those options
with Asian or Cliquet style settlement. The Exchange has represented
that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to monitor trading
in options on these option products. The Exchange has also stated that
for surveillance purposes, the Exchange will have complete access to
information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying
securities.
    The Commission believes that the proposed modification in how
exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Equity Options are stated may
provide greater flexibility for market participants to tailor a
contract to the needs of the investor. In addition, the Commission
believes that the proposal to specify how exercise prices and premium
for FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options will be rounded and how
they will be stated using a percentage-based methodology should provide
greater clarity and allow market participants to specify contracts that
meet their particular needs. Moreover, the Commission believes that the
proposal to remove a reference to fractional pricing is consistent with
the shift to decimal pricing found elsewhere in the Exchange's rules
and would promote internal consistency.
    The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal to replace
certain duties of a FLEX Specialist with respect to FLEX Options
transactions with duties assigned to a FLEX Official, who is an
Exchange employee, is consistent with the FLEX rules of CBOE.\69\ Under
current rules, the FLEX Specialist is responsible for assuring that a
Request for Quotes is submitted properly as a FLEX Option and for
displaying the terms and specifications of the Request for Quotes. The
Exchange now proposes to change these duties to a FLEX Official

rather than a FLEX Specialist due to market structure changes. The new
rules will set forth with specificity the particular functions and
requirements of a FLEX Official to, among other things, ensure
adherence to FLEX rules and call in a Specialist to make FLEX Quotes.
The Exchange has represented that the FLEX Official would be an
Exchange employee that reports to the regulatory officer of the
Exchange. The Commission would expect the Exchange to ensure that such
FLEX Official, or any other designated qualified employees called in to
assist the FLEX Official as permitted under the new rule, are properly
qualified and meet any necessary requirements. The regulatory oversight
of FLEX transactions by a properly qualified FLEX Official could help
to ensure that FLEX transactions comply with the FLEX rules. Therefore
we find this change is consistent with the Act. The proposed conforming
changes to other provisions in the Exchange rules would enhance clarity
and consistency. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed
changes to refer to FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes as being
disseminated and remove the concept of a post specific to the trading
of FLEX options will align the rules with current trading practices on
the Exchange's floor.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See CBOE Rules 24A.5(a)(i) and (ii), 24A.12(b). See also
NYSEArca Rules 5.30(b)(7), 5.38.
    \70\ See supra note 51 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal's minor,
conforming, and technical revisions to Section 15, Rules 900G through
909G are consistent with the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are 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-NYSEMKT-2016-48 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-NYSEMKT-2016-48. 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-NYSEMKT-2016-48, and should
be submitted on or before November 15, 2016.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, prior to the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment Nos. 2 and
3 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, the proposed changes
regarding the operation of FLEX ByRDs, including the delineation of
applicable position limits and statement that FLEX ByRDs will be
settled similar to Non-FLEX ByRDs, using all-day VWAP settlement and
European exercise style, will provide additional clarity to the
Exchange's rules concerning FLEX ByRDs. Similarly, the proposed changes
to specify that Asian and Cliquet style settlement will be available
only for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups remove
potential for ambiguity about the operation of these settlement styles
for FLEX Options. Furthermore, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to have these changes incorporated into the rules of the
Exchange concurrently with the changes noticed for comment in the
original filing. Additionally, deleting the proposal to permit cash
settlement for all FLEX Equity Options other than FLEX ByRDs, and the
corresponding provision that would permit the use of a VWAP settlement
for FLEX Equity Options other than FLEX ByRDs, helps to ensure that the
proposal does not raise investor protection and manipulation concerns
and allows the Commission to no longer consider these provisions for
consistency with the Act.
    Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, the Commission finds good
cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of the Act,\72\
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48), as modified by
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25713 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8849]
[DOCID:fr21fe06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-77-000]

FPL Group, Inc., Constellation Energy Group, Inc.; Notice of
Filing

February 13, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 9, 2006, FPL Group, Inc. and
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (collectively, Applicants) made a
filing pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for
authorization of a consolidation of jurisdictional facilities in which
the Applicants will merge through an all-stock transaction.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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: 5 p.m. on April 10, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2377 Filed 2-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P