[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35144-35146]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15532]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-176, OMB Control No. 3235-0311]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 7d-1.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
7(d)) (the ``Act'' or ``Investment Company Act'') requires an
investment company (``fund'') organized outside the United States
(``foreign fund'') to obtain an order from the Commission allowing the
fund to register under the Act before making a public offering of its
securities through the United States mail or any means of interstate
commerce. The Commission may issue an order only if it finds that it is
both legally and practically feasible effectively to enforce the
provisions of the Act against the foreign fund, and that the
registration of the fund is consistent with the public interest and
protection of investors.
    Rule 7d-1 (17 CFR 270.7d-1) under the Act, which was adopted in
1954, specifies the conditions under which a Canadian management
investment company (``Canadian fund'') may request an order from the
Commission permitting it to register under the Act. Although rule 7d-1
by its terms applies only to Canadian funds, other foreign funds
generally have agreed to comply with the requirements of rule 7d-1 as a
prerequisite to receiving an order permitting those foreign funds'
registration under the Act.
    The rule requires a Canadian fund that wishes to register to file
an application with the Commission that contains various undertakings
and agreements by the fund. The requirement of the Canadian fund to
file an application is a collection of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Certain of the undertakings and agreements, in turn,
impose the following additional information collection requirements:
    (1) The fund must file with the Commission agreements between the
fund and its directors, officers, and service providers requiring them
to comply with the fund's charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain
other obligations relating to the undertakings and agreements in the
application;
    (2) the fund and each of its directors, officers, and investment
advisers that is not a U.S. resident, must file with the Commission an
irrevocable designation of the fund's custodian in the United States as
agent for service of process;
    (3) the fund's charter and bylaws must provide that (a) the fund
will comply with certain provisions of the Act applicable to all funds,
(b) the fund will maintain originals or copies of its books and records
in the United States, and (c) the fund's contracts with its custodian,
investment adviser, and principal underwriter, will contain certain
terms, including a requirement that the adviser maintain originals or
copies of pertinent records in the United States;
    (4) the fund's contracts with service providers will require that
the provider perform the contract in accordance with the Act, the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a), and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a), as applicable; and
    (5) the fund must file, and periodically revise, a list of persons
affiliated with the fund or its adviser or underwriter.
    As noted above, under section 7(d) of the Act the Commission may
issue an order permitting a foreign fund's registration only if the
Commission finds that ``by reason of special circumstances or
arrangements, it is both legally and practically feasible effectively
to enforce the provisions of the (Act).'' The information collection
requirements are necessary to assure that the substantive provisions of
the Act may be enforced as a matter of contract right in the United
States or Canada by the fund's shareholders or by the Commission.
    Rule 7d-1 also contains certain information collection requirements
that are associated with other provisions of the Act. These
requirements are applicable to all registered funds and are outside the
scope of this request.
    The Commission believes that one foreign fund is registered under
rule 7d-1 and currently active. Apart from requirements under the Act
applicable to all registered funds, rule 7d-1 imposes ongoing burdens
to maintain records in the United States, and to update, as necessary,
certain fund agreements, designations of the fund's custodian as
service agent, and the fund's list of affiliated persons. The
Commission staff estimates that each year under the rule, the active
registrant and its directors, officers, and service providers engage in
the following collections of information and associated burden hours:
     For the fund and its investment adviser to maintain
records in the United States: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule requires an applicant and its investment adviser to
maintain records in the United States (which, without the
requirement, might be maintained in Canada or another foreign
jurisdiction), which facilitates routine inspections and any special
investigations of the fund by Commission staff. The registrant and
its investment adviser, however, already maintain the registrant's
records in the United States and in no other jurisdiction.
Therefore, maintenance of the registrant's records in the United
States does not impose an additional burden beyond that imposed by
other provisions of the Act. Those provisions are applicable to all
registered funds and the compliance burden of those provisions is
outside the scope of this request.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 hours: 0 minutes of compliance clerk time.

     For the fund to update its list of affiliated persons:

2 hours: 2 hours of support staff time.

     For new officers, directors, and service providers to
enter into and file agreements requiring them to comply with the fund's
charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain other obligations:

0.5 hours: 7.5 minutes of director time; 2.5 minutes of officer time;
20 minutes of support staff time.

     For new officers, directors, and investment advisers who
are not residents of the United States to file irrevocable designation
of the fund's custodian as agent for process of service:

0.25 hours: 5 minutes of director time; 10 minutes of support staff
time.

    Based on the estimates above, the Commission estimates that the
total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements is 2.75
hours.\2\ We estimate that directors perform 0.21 hours of these burden
hours at a total cost of $930.20,\3\ officers perform 0.04 of these
burden hours at a total cost of $22.08,\4\ and support staff perform
2.5 of these burden hours at a total cost of

$175.\5\ Thus, the Commission estimates the aggregate annual cost of
these burden hours associated with rule 7d-1 is $1,127.28.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0 + 2
+ 0.5 + 0.25) = 2.75 hours.
    \3\ The director estimates are based on the following
calculations: (7.5 minutes + 5 minutes)/60 minutes per hour = 0.2083
hours; and 0.2083 hours x $4,465 per hour = $930.20. The per hour
cost estimate is based on estimated hourly compensation for each
board member of $558.125 and an average board size of 8 members. The
$4,465 per hour estimate for a fund board of directors includes a
CPI inflation adjustment from the 2009 estimate.
    \4\ The officer estimates are based on the following
calculations: 2.5 minutes/60 minutes per hour = 0.0416 hours; 0.0416
hours x $530 per hour = $22.08. The per hour cost estimate, as well
as other internal time cost estimates for management and
professional earnings, is based on the figure for chief compliance
officers found in SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \5\ The support staff estimates are based on the following
calculations: 2 hours + 20 minutes + 10 minutes = 2.5 hours; and 2.5
hours x $70 per hour = $175. The per hour cost estimate, as well as
other internal time cost estimates for office salaries, is based on
the figure for compliance clerks found in SIFMA's Office Salaries in
the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 2.93 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation:
$1,127.28 = $930.20 + $22.08 + $175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a fund were to file an application under rule 7d-1 to register
under the Act, the Commission estimates that the rule would impose
initial information collection burdens (for filing an application,
preparing the specified charter, bylaw, and contract provisions,
designations of agents for service of process, and an initial list of
affiliated persons, and establishing a means of keeping records in the
United States) of approximately 90 hours for the fund and its
associated persons. The Commission is not including these hours in its
calculation of the annual burden because no fund has applied to
register under the Act pursuant to rule 7d-1 in the last three years.
    As noted above, after registration, a Canadian fund may file a
supplemental application seeking special relief designed for the fund's
particular circumstances. Rule 7d-1 does not mandate these
applications. For purposes of this PRA we are assuming one registrant
has filed a substantive supplemental application within the past three
years. The Commission staff estimates that the rule would impose an
additional information collection burden of 5 hours on a fund to comply
with the Commission's application process at a cost of $6,136.50.\7\
The staff understands that funds also obtain assistance from outside
counsel to comply with the Commission's application process and the
cost burden of using outside counsel is discussed in Item 13 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The staff estimates that, on average, the fund's investment
adviser spends approximately 4 hours to review an application,
including 3.5 hours by an assistant general counsel at a cost of
$466 per hour, 0.5 hours by an administrative assistant, at a cost
of $81 per hour, and the fund's board of directors spends an
additional 1 hour at a cost of $4,465 per hour for a total of 5
hours, at a total cost of $6,136.50. This estimate is based on the
following calculation: (3.5 hours x $466 per hour) + (0.5 hours x
$81 per hour) + (1 hour x $4,465 per hour) = $6,136.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission staff estimates the aggregate annual
burden hours of the collection of information associated with rule 7d-1
is 13.25 hours, at a cost of $9,518.34.\8\ Amortized over three years
we estimate an annual cost burden of $3,172.78 based on an hourly
annual burden of 4.42 hours.\9\ These estimates of average burden hours
are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative
survey or study of Commission rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
2.75 hours year 1 + 5 hours year 1 + 2.75 hours year 2 + 2.75 hours
year 3 = 13.25 hours; $1,127.28 year 1+ $6,136.50 year 1 + $1,127.28
year 2 + $1,127.28 year 3 = $9,518.34. As discussed above, the
ongoing compliance burdens for an active fund require updates each
year, whereas we estimate to receive one supplemental application
each three year period.
    \9\ The estimates are based on the following calculations: 4.42
hours = 13.25 cumulative burden hours/3 years. Likewise, the
amortized cost burden is based on the following calculations:
$9,518.34 cumulative 3-year cost burden/3 years = $3,172.78 average
annual cost burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Canadian or other foreign fund in the future applied to
register under the Act under rule 7d-1, the fund initially might have
capital and start-up costs (not including hourly burdens) of an
estimated $20,000 to comply with the rule's initial information
collection requirements. These costs include legal and processing-
related fees for preparing the required documentation (such as the
application, charter, bylaw, and contract provisions, designations for
service of process, and the list of affiliated persons). Other related
costs would include fees for establishing arrangements with a custodian
or other agent for maintaining records in the United States, copying
and transportation costs for records, and the costs of purchasing or
leasing computer equipment, software, or other record storage equipment
for records maintained in electronic or photographic form.
    The Commission expects that a fund and its sponsors would incur
these costs immediately, and that the annualized cost of the
expenditures would be $20,000 in the first year. Some expenditures
might involve capital improvements, such as computer equipment, having
expected useful lives for which annualized figures beyond the first
year would be meaningful.
    These annualized figures are not provided, however, because, in
most cases, the expenses would be incurred immediately rather than on
an annual basis. The Commission is not including these costs in its
calculation of the annualized capital/start-up costs because no fund
has applied under rule 7d-1 to register under the Act pursuant to rule
7d-1 in the last three years.
    As indicated above, a Canadian or fund may file a supplemental
application seeking special relief designed for the fund's particular
circumstances. Rule 7d-1 does not mandate these applications. The
active registrant filed a substantive supplemental application in the
past three years. As noted above, the staff understands that funds
generally use outside counsel to prepare the application. The staff
estimates that outside counsel spends 10 hours preparing a supplemental
application, including 8 hours by an associate and 2 hours by a
partner. Outside counsel billing arrangements and rates vary based on
numerous factors, but the staff has estimated the average cost of
outside counsel as $400 per hour, based on information received from
funds, intermediaries and their counsel. The Commission staff therefore
estimates that the fund would obtain assistance from outside counsel at
a cost of $4,000.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 10
hours x $400 per hour = $4,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request written comment on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 17, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15532 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15894-15895]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC)
Joint Plenary With EUROCAE Working Group 96

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fifth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC)
Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group 96.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Fifth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications
(WAIC) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group 96.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 22 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. and May 23-
25, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Airbus, Saint Martin du Touch,
26 Chemin de l'Espeissi[egrave]re, 31300 Toulouse.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at [email protected]
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Fifth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne
Intra Communications (WAIC) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE Working Group
96. The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome/Administrative Duties
2. IPR/Membership Call-Out and Introductions
3. Acceptance of Meeting Minutes for the Third Joint Plenary of SC-236/
WG-96 Held at RTCA in February 2018
4. Review Plenary Agenda and Sub-Working Group Schedule Including
Delivery Schedule for White Paper and Mops
5. Break Into Sub-Working Group Meetings When Plenary Business Complete

Wednesday, May 23-Thursday, May 24, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

6. Continue With Plenary or Sub-Working Group Meetings

Friday, May 25, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

7. Continue With Plenary or Sub-Working Group Meetings
8. Reports of the Sub-Working Groups
9. Status and Review of the Draft Paper SC-236 Intermediate Report
(Dedicated for ICAO Job Card)
10. Review of Special Committee Schedule
11. Approve Changes and Updates to the Terms of Reference
12. New Business Discussions
13. Review of Action Items
14. Plan for Next Meeting
15. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Registration is required for attendance. Persons wishing to register,
to present statements, or to obtain information should contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members
of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any
time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 9, 2018.
Michelle Swearingen,
Systems and Equipment Standards Branch, AIR-6B0, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-600, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-07571 Filed 4-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10314-10315]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-40-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp., et al. v.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Complaint of American Electric Power Service Corp., et
al v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230210-5219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2871-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Pioneer
Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: 2023-02-13_Pioneer
Supplemental Order 864 Compliance to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-93-003.
    Applicants: Tatanka Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-423-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Notice RE
Hill Energy Resources Termination Filing to be effective 1/17/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-718-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2022 Production Ministerial Filing--
Amendment to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1103-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Cajun LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver, et al. of Cleco Cajun LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230210-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1104-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-BCEC-GSEC Sisseton
Facility Development Agreement to be effective 1/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1105-000.
    Applicants: Mitsui & Co. Energy Marketing and Services (USA), Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Category status update
normal filing to be effective 2/14/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1106-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Basin Electric Member
Interconnection and Misc Service Agreements to be effective 7/16/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5111.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1107-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, SA No. 6783;
Queue Nos. AC1-222 and AD1-055 to be effective 1/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230213-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1108-000.
    Applicants: Front Range-Midway Solar Project, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Front Range-Midway
Solar Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES23-36-000.
    Applicants: Horizon West Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Horizon West Transmission,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH23-5-000.
    Applicants: Citizens Energy Corporation.
    Description: Citizens Energy Corporation submits FERC 65-B Notice
of Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 2/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230208-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03428 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41417]
[DOCID:fr17au09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13454-000]

McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

August 7, 2009.
    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Racine Hydrokinetic Project, to be located on the
Ohio River, in Meigs County, Ohio and Mason County, West Virginia.
    The proposed Racine Project would be located approximately 500 feet
downstream of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Racine Lock and Dam. The
proposed project would consist of: (1) Ten turbine generators, with a
total installed capacity of 350 kilowatts, mounted to a single barge
attached to the riverbed; (2) an armored submarine cable to transmit
power generated to a metering station and transformer on shore at the
southeast end of the Racine Dam; (3) a new approximately 450-foot-long,
13.2 kilovolt transmission line, which would extend from an existing
substation to interconnect with the grid at the existing hydropower
facility at the Racine Dam; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The Racine
Project would have an estimated average annual generation of 1533
megawatts-hours, which would be distributed to the power grid or sold
directly to industrial, commercial, or municipal users.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Bruce McGinnis, Sr., McGinnis, Inc., P.O.
Box 534, 502 Second St. Ext., South Point, Ohio 45680,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http: //www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http: //
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13454) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19617 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14372-14374]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838; FRL-9923-58]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection and
Comment Request; Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and
Ecolabels for Federal Procurement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards
and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement, and identified by EPA ICR No.
2516.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-new, represents a new request. Before
submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and
accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and
comment. EPA is also announcing the testing of draft guidelines and a
pilot project on an assessment approach for recognizing product
environmental performance standards and ecolabels for Federal
procurement in the following three categories: Furniture, building
flooring, and building paints/coatings/removers. An additional purchase
category may be piloted, depending on available resources and other
considerations. EPA is seeking comment on the criteria/qualifications
that will be used for the selection of the multi-stakeholder panel
members, who will refine the draft guidelines for specific sectors. In
addition, EPA is seeking volunteer standards development organizations
and ecolabel programs to be assessed per the draft guidelines.

DATES: Comments on multi-stakeholder panel member criteria/
qualifications must be received on or before April 20, 2015.
Expressions of interest to participate in the pilot and comments on the
ICR must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your expressions of interest to participate in the
pilot and comments on the ICR and multi-stakeholder panel member
criteria/qualifications, identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Julie Shannon, Chemistry,
Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (7409M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8834; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Testing of Updated Draft Guidelines

    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70938) (FRL-
9394-6), EPA issued for public comment draft guidelines for product
environmental performance standards and ecolabels for voluntary use in
Federal procurement. EPA's goal in developing these draft guidelines is
to create a ``transparent, fair, and consistent approach to selecting
product environmental performance standards and ecolabels to support
the Agency's mission and federal sustainable acquisition mandates.''
The fundamental aim of the draft guidelines is to establish a cross-
sector framework to be used in recognizing non-governmental
environmental standards (and consequently, environmentally preferable
products meeting these standards) for use in Federal procurement.
    The draft guidelines include four sections:
    1. Guidelines for the process for developing standards refers to
the procedures used to develop, maintain, and update an environmental
standard.
    2. Guidelines for the environmental effectiveness of the standards
refers to the criteria in the environmental standard or ecolabel that
support the claim of environmental preferability.
    3. Guidelines for conformity assessment refers to the procedures
and practices by which products are assessed for conformity to the
requirements specified by standards and ecolabeling programs.
    4. Guidelines for Management of Ecolabeling Programs refers to the
organizational and management practices of an ecolabeling program.
    EPA has responded to public comments and released a new version of
the ``Guidelines for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards''
at http://www.epa.gov/draftGuidelines/responses.html. The majority of
public comments supported EPA undertaking--with key external entity and
stakeholder participation--additional work to further refine the draft
guidelines and test a potential approach to assessing standards and
ecolabels. Therefore, in this next phase of work, EPA is contracting
with an entity to convene a coordinating Governance Committee, product
category-specific multi-stakeholder panels, and independent assessment
entity(ies) to develop and pilot test an approach in three product
categories: Furniture, building flooring, and building paints/coatings/
removers. These sectors were chosen because they meet some or all of
the following criteria:
     Potentially significant environmental and/or human health
impact (based on lifecycle assessments and hazard and risk
assessments).
     Opportunity for environmental and/or human health
improvement through private sector standards/ecolabels.
     Significant volume of Federal purchases.
     Current Federal sustainable acquisition mandates in the
category are limited, out-of-date, and/or could be augmented with
private sector standards.
    An additional to-be-determined purchase category may be piloted,
depending upon available resources and other considerations. In
addition, due to significant interest, EPA will explore the potential
for the draft guidelines to apply to service sector standards and
ecolabels (e.g., services related to building maintenance, cafeterias,
and professional consultants, among others). The potential pilot for
this sector would not assess service sector standards; rather the
analysis and

recommendations could potentially position the draft guidelines to
accommodate such assessments in 2016 and beyond.

II. Opportunity To Participate in a Pilot

    Standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and
certification entities that have product environmental performance
standards and/or ecolabels that cover one or more of the three product
categories, and could be considered for use in Federal procurement per
E.O. 13514, entitled: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance (74 FR 52117, October 8, 2009), the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR 23.103), and Federal government
standards policy, should consider submitting those standards and
ecolabels for assessment as a part of the pilot project.
    Those standards and ecolabels assessed will provide information per
product-category specific checklists (based on the draft guidelines),
to be developed by multi-stakeholder panels, as described at http://www.epa.gov/epp/draftGuidelines/pilot.html. Each purchase category
panel shall include a balanced group of relevant stakeholders in the
environmental and human health performance standards and ecolabels
space and ensure an objective, open, and consensus-driven process and
credible results. The stakeholder types that may be represented on the
multi-stakeholder panels include, but are not limited to:
     Standards development organizations.
     Ecolabel program managers/system owners.
     Conformity assessment bodies.
     Federal purchasers.
     Other large institutional purchasers such as state
governments or universities.
     Manufacturers and/or vendors in the product categories
targeted for assessment.
     Professional societies, users groups, and industry
consortia.
     Research and development organizations and academia.
     Non-governmental organizations widely respected for their
work on public health, environmental protection, and sustainability
issues.
     Federal government agencies knowledgeable in conformity
assessment.
    EPA is seeking input from the public regarding the multi-
stakeholder panel member criteria/qualifications. EPA proposed the
following:
     Knowledge of the environmental and/or human health impacts
of the particular product category.
     Experience working with diverse stakeholders towards
consensus.
     Familiarity with the draft Guidelines and Federal
sustainable acquisition mandates.
     Familiarity with standards development and conformity
assessment approaches.
     Ability to devote the necessary time to the panel
(including one meeting and regular conference calls).
     Willingness to sign a conflict of interest disclosure
form.

III. Information Collection Request (ICR)

A. What comments are sought on the ICR?

    Pursuant to the PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to
enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small
businesses and non-profit organizations (those that employ less than
25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to
reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses and non-profit
organizations affected by this collection.

B. What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Title: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and
Ecolabels for Federal Procurement.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2516.01.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070--New.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing
in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the
authority in the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(11)),
which requires EPA to ``Identify opportunities to use Federal
procurement to encourage source reduction'' and section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), which requires Federal agencies to ``use technical standards
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies,
using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy
objectives or activities.'' Federal agencies need this assessment per
the draft guidelines to determine which, among sometimes dozens of
private sector standards within a single purchase category, are
appropriate and effective in meeting Federal procurement goals and
mandates.
    Federal agencies must comply with the following sustainability-
related purchasing mandates: Section 2(h) of E.O. 13514; section 6002
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6002); section
9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (7 U.S.C. 8102); the
Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.); section 2(d) of E.O.
13423, entitled: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management (72 FR 3919, January 26, 2007); and the FAR,
including 48 CFR part 23, entitled: Environment, Energy and Water
Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and
Drug-Free Workplace (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_green).
    Via NTTAA, Federal agencies are required to ``use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry
out policy objectives or activities,'' except when an agency determines
that such use ``is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.'' OMB Circular A-119, entitled: Federal Participation in

the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities, reaffirms Federal agency use of non-
governmental standards in procurement.
    While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards
and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive
Order, the lack of independently assessed information about and Federal
guidance on using other product environmental performance standards and
ecolabels often results in an inconsistent approach by Federal
purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8.5
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are standards development organizations, ecolabeling programs,
and environmental certification entities.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 20.
    Frequency of response: Once during 2015 pilot; and, a to-be-
determined frequency depending upon learnings from the pilot.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 340 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $24,711.20 for burden hours, and $0
estimated costs for capital investment or maintenance and operational
costs.

C. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 11, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-06275 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74166-74167]
[DOCID:fr05de08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13309-000]

Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    November 28, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC filed
an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ventura Ocean Energy Project,
to be located on the Pacific Ocean 12 to 25 mile offshore from Ventura
and Santa Barbara Counties, Massachusetts.
    The proposed Ventura Ocean Energy Project consists of: (1) 100
proposed 1

megawatt OceanLinx Wave Energy Converter generating units having a
total installed capacity of 100 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission
line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The Grays Harbor Ocean Energy
Company, LLC, project would have an average annual generation of 300
gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. W. Burton Hamner, Grays Harbor Ocean Energy
Company, LLC, 5534 30th Avenue, NE., Seattle, WA 98105, phone (206)
491-0945.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13309) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28783 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47469-47475]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17201]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78348; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain Rules Related to Flexible
Exchange Options

July 15, 2016.
    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 July 1, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 proposes to amend certain rules related to Flexible
Exchange (``FLEX'') Options. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend certain rules related to
FLEX Options, as described below.
    FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow
investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index
options.\3\ The Exchange is proposing to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See generally Section 15, Flexible Exchange Options, Rules
900G-909G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLEX Options for Binary Return Derivatives Contracts (``ByRDs'')
    The Exchange proposes to modify its rules to enable market
participants to trade customized--or FLEX--options contracts in
ByRDs.\4\ Specifically, the

Exchange proposes to add a new definition of ``FLEX ByRDs,'' which
would be a ``Binary Return Derivatives contract on any ByRDs-eligible
underlying security that is subject to the rules in this Section.'' \5\
The Exchange also proposes to revise Rule 900G(b)(16) to include FLEX
ByRDs in the definition of ``Series of FLEX Options.'' \6\ The Exchange
believes that FLEX ByRDs would enable market participants to negotiate
terms that differ from standardized ByRDs, which would, in turn,
provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the
use of FLEX Options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ByRDs are European-style option contracts on individual
stocks, exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') and Section 107 that have a
fixed return in cash based on a set strike price; satisfy specified
listing criteria; and may only be exercised at expiration pursuant
to the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation (the ``OCC''). See
Rules 900ByRDs(b), 915ByRDs.
    \5\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(17).
    \6\ See proposed Rule 900G(b)(16) (proposing to add that a
``Series of FLEX Options'' would include, 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).
    \7\ The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 903G(c)(3)(iii) to
provide that FLEX ByRDs must be settled the same as non-FLEX ByRDs.
See proposed Rule 903G(c)(3)(iii) (discussed herein under
``Additional Updates to Reflect Trading in FLEX Options''); see also
Rule 910ByRDs (Determination of the Settlement Price of ByRDs). As
ByRDs are settled based on the Volume-Weighted Average Price of the
underlying security (see id.), the Exchange proposes to add new
paragraphs (b)(20) of Rule 900G and (c)(5) of Rule 903G to permit
parties to a FLEX Option to designate a VWAP Settlement (discussed
below under ``Additional Settlement Styles for FLEX Options: Asian,
Cliquet and VWAP Style'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Settlement Styles for FLEX Options: Asian, Cliquet and VWAP
Style
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to permit parties to designate
additional settlement styles for FLEX Options.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to permit parties to FLEX Index Options to designate
Asian style settlement and Cliquet style settlement, both of which are
currently offered on another options exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Unless otherwise specified herein, the proposed settlement
styles would be subject to the same rules as FLEX Options, including
for hours of trading and margin requirements.
    \9\ See e.g., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'')
Rules 24A.1 (Definitions), 24A.4 (Terms of FLEX Options), 24B.1
(Definitions) and 24B.4 (Terms of FLEX Options). FLEX ByRDs could
not be settled using Asian or Cliquet settlement. See, e.g., supra
n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in new paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 903G and new paragraph
(b)(18) of Rule 900G, FLEX Index Options with Asian style settlement
would be cash-settled call \10\ option contracts for which the final
payout would be based on an arithmetic average of specified closing
prices of an underlying broad-based index taken on twelve predetermined
monthly observation dates, including the expiration date (``Asian
option''). The monthly observation dates would be determined by working
backwards from the farthest out observation date prior to the
expiration date. When the scheduled observation date for an Asian
option occurs on a holiday or a weekend, the observation would occur on
the immediately preceding business day. The exercise settlement amount
for Asian options would be calculated similarly to other options (i.e.,
the difference between the strike price and the averaged settlement
value would determine the value, or ``moneyness'' of the contract at
expiration). Asian options would have a term of approximately one year
and would expire anytime from 350 to 371 days (i.e., approximately 50
to 53 calendar weeks) from the date of initial listing. The contract
multiplier (or Index Multiplier) for an Asian option that settles in
U.S. dollars, for example, would be $100.\11\ Finally, because
settlement value is determined by observations taken over a 12-month
period, Asian style settlement requires European-style exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Puts would not be permitted.
    \11\ See Rule 900G(b)(12) providing that Index Multiplier means
the monetary amount, stated in terms of the settlement currency
specified in the contract, by which the current index settlement
value is to be multiplied to arrive at the value required to be
delivered to the holder of a call or the holder of a put upon valid
exercise of the option and setting forth the established Index
Multipliers for FLEX Index Options on domestic indices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example of an Asian FLEX call option expiring in-the-money
follows. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of XYZ
Index over a year purchases a 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             XYZ Index
                Monthly observation date                   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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Asian FLEX options use the ``preceding business day
  convention,'' the dates of May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015, were not
  used in the above example because those dates will fall on a weekend
  or a holiday. Instead the business days immediately preceding those
  dates were used as the monthly observation date.

    If, in the above example, the strike price for the Asian FLEX call
option was 2060, that contract would have expired out-of-the-money.
This is because the exercise settlement value for this 2060 call option
is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded). Since the strike price of 2060 is
more than the 2050.98 exercise settlement value, this option would not
be exercised and would expire worthless.
    As proposed in new paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 903G and new paragraph
(b)(19) of Rule 900G, FLEX Index Options with Cliquet style settlement
would be cash-settled call option contracts for which the final payout
would be based on the sum of monthly returns (i.e., percent changes in
the closing value of the underlying broad-based index from one month to
the next), subject to a monthly return ``cap'' (e.g., 3%), applied over
twelve monthly observation dates (``Cliquet option''). Cliquet options
would have a term of approximately one year and would expire anytime
from 350 to 371 days (which is approximately 50 to 53 calendar weeks)
from the date of initial listing. The contract multiplier for a Cliquet
option that settles in U.S. dollars, for example, would be $100.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 price of the underlying broad-based index would be observed
for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement value for
Cliquet FLEX Options. Each Cliquet FLEX Option would have 12
consecutive monthly observation dates (which includes an observation on
the expiration date) and each observation would be based on the closing
price of the underlying broad-based index. The specific monthly
observation dates would be determined by working backwards from the
farthest out observation date prior to the expiration date. When the
scheduled observation date for a Cliquet option occurs on a holiday or
a weekend, the observation

would occur on the immediately preceding business day. The parties may
not designate a subsequent business day convention for Cliquet options.
    The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a capped monthly
return (percent change in the closing values of the underlying broad-
based index 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 (the percent change of the underlying broad-based index)
using the closing value of the broad-based index on the current monthly
observation date and the closing value of the broad-based index on the
previous monthly observation date. The Exchange would then compare the
actual monthly return to the capped monthly return. The value to be
included 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-
based index was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return for a
Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be included (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-based index was 3.30%, the 2% value would be
included (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 included in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing
on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying
broad-based index was -4.07%, the -4.07% value would be included as the
value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement
value. There would be, however, be a global floor for Cliquet options
so 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 may
only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the ``strike'' price
for a Cliquet option may only span a range between $0.05 and $25.95. In
addition, the ``strike'' price for a Cliquet option may only be
designated in $0.05 increments, e.g., $1.75, $2.50, $4.15. Increments
of $0.01 in the ``strike'' price field (representing the capped monthly
return) would not be permitted.
    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-based index 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-style exercise and may not be
exercised prior to the expiration date. The exercise settlement value
for Cliquet options would be equal to the initial reference price of
the underlying broad-based index 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 a less, the option would expire
worthless.
    An example of a Cliquet option follows. 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Sum of
                                                     XYZ Index    Actual monthly  Capped monthly      monthly
            Monthly observation date               closing value      return       return (CMRi)      returns
                                                       (Si)          (percent)       (percent)       (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Cliquet FLEX options use the ``preceding business day convention,'' the dates of May 23, 2015, and
  August 23, 2015, were not used in the above example because those dates fall on a weekend or a holiday.
  Instead the business days immediately preceding those dates were used as the monthly observation dates.
** Monthly capped return applied.

    The ``strike price'' for a Cliquet option is determined by the
agreed upon capped monthly return, which in this example is 2%. The
Exercise Settlement Value (``ESV'') is the greater of zero (0) or
[(Closing price of index on trade date * sum of capped returns) +
Strike Price]. However, as with standard options, the Total Return, or
payout, at expiration is based on how much the ESV exceeds the Strike
Price (i.e., the ESV minus the Strike Price). Thus, in this example,
the ESV for this January 22, 2016 Cliquet option is 83.60, which
exceeds the Strike Price by 81.60. The contract multiplier ($100) is
then applied (81.60 * $100) resulting in $8,160 as the cash settlement
between the writer of the contract and the buyer of the contract. If
the sum of the monthly capped returns had been negative, this option
would have expired worthless.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to permit parties to a FLEX Equity
Option or a FLEX ByRD to designate a ``VWAP Settlement,'' wherein the
settlement value of a FLEX Option would be determined by the Volume-
Weighted Average Price (or VWAP) of the underlying on the expiration
day of the contract. Specifically, as proposed in new paragraphs
(b)(20) of Rule 900G and (c)(5) of Rule 903G, parties to FLEX Options
may designate VWAP settlement with call or put options and the
settlement price would be calculated as the amount in which the VWAP of
all reported transactions in the underlying security (rounded to $0.01)
on the expiration date exceed the agreed upon ``exercise (strike)
price'' of the option. Because the settlement value is not determined
until the date of expiration, FLEX Options with a VWAP Settlement have
European-style exercise. The Exchange notes that VWAP transactions are
becoming increasingly popular in the equities (and options) markets as
a means to reduce risks associated with the timing of entering an order
during a volatile period, especially with orders for large positions
that would disrupt trading if exposed all at once.\13\ A VWAP
Settlement may also reduce or offset risk at expiration because of
volatility on the expiration day. The Exchange believes that by using a
VWAP a trader may ``smooth'' the average price paid or realized for a
large position. Thus, as proposed, VWAP Settlement for FLEX Options
would provide market participants with a method to offset risk for a
large position, regardless of whether the position in the underlying
security was established using a VWAP methodology.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that the settlement price of ByRDs are
based on the VWAP, which for a given underlying security means the
sum of the dollar value of trades reported to the Consolidated Tape
(price multiplied by number of shares traded) divided by the total
number of shares traded during the entire last day of trading on the
business day of their expiration, or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the
business day prior to expiration. See Rule 910ByRDs (Determination
of the Settlement Price of ByRDs).
    \14\ While VWAP Settlement would be available for FLEX Equity
Options, as noted herein, FLEX ByRDs would be required to be settled
using VWAP Settlement. See, e.g., supra n. 8 and proposed Rule
903G(c)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the proposed settlement styles, the Exchange would use
the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's
other FLEX Options, including FLEX Index Options. The Exchange further
represents that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to
monitor trading in these option products. For surveillance purposes,
the Exchange would have access to information regarding trading
activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
FLEX Exercise Prices and Premiums
    The Exchange also proposes to modify how exercise prices and
premiums for FLEX Options may be expressed, which would reflect recent
changes in the marketplace. The Exchange notes that when it adopted
rules for FLEX Options, strike prices were designated in one-eighth of
a dollar, and options were priced in fractions of a dollar. Now that
decimalization has been applied to options trading, including trading
in FLEX Options, certain exchange rules have been revised to reflect
the decimal equivalent of a previously approved fractional term. Thus,
the Exchange proposes to modify current Rule 903G(b)(1) and (c)(2).
First, in the case of FLEX Equity Options, the Exchange proposes to
modify Rule 903G(c)(2) to clarify that exercise prices and premiums may
be stated in:
    (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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Current rule 903G(c)(2) provides that ``[e]xercise prices
and premiums may be stated in dollar amount or percentage of the
price of the underlying security, rounded to the nearest minimum
price variation (as set forth in Rule 960NY)''.

The Exchange notes that this change would align with the Exchange's
treatment of FLEX Index Options as well as the rules of other
exchanges.\16\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule
903G(b)(1) and (c)(2) to provide that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Rule 903G(b)(1); CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2) and
(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Premiums will be rounded to the
nearest minimum tick. 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 provided above.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 903G(b)(1) and (c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that this proposed change is consistent with the
rules of another options exchange.\18\ In this regard, the Exchange
also proposed to modify Rule 903G(a)(3)(i) to eliminate reference to
fractional pricing.\19\ The Exchange believes this change would provide
greater flexibility in terms of describing an option contract tailored
to the needs of the investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2) and (c)(2).
    \19\ The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive
changes to paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (b)(2) and (3) of Rule 903G to
re-locate the semi-colon and to replace a semi-colon with a period,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Updates To Reflect Trading in FLEX Options
    The Exchange is also proposing the following modifications to
streamline and update FLEX Options Rules:
     ``FLEX'' Options. The Exchange proposes to define ``FLEX''
as shorthand for Flexible Options in the title of Section 15.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed Section 15 (Flexible Exchange (``FLEX'')
Options). The Exchange also proposes to delete an extraneous ``t''
from the word the in Rule 900G(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Floor Market Makers. The Exchange proposes to replace
reference in the FLEX rules to ``Registered Options Traders'' (``ROT'')
with ``Floor Market Makers,'' \21\ which is consistent with an approval
order by the SEC, which provided, that, among other changes, ROTs would
be referred to in Exchange rules as Floor Marker Makers.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rules 900G(b)(4), 906G(a)(iv) and (b), 908G,
909G (updating title of rule) and 909G(b).
    \22\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February
27, 2009) 74 FR 9843, 9843, n. 11. (March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-
2008-14) (in filing for this rule change, the Exchange noted that
certain terms in then, NYSE Alternext Rules 900G-909G would ``become
outdated upon approval of the rules proposed herein'' and that the
Exchange would file subsequent filings to address these outmoded
references). In approving this proposal, the Commission noted that
the general term Market Maker in the proposed rules includes, among
others, Specialists and Floor Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Flex Official. The Exchange proposes to add the concept of
a ``FLEX Official'' to Rule 900G(b)(21) and new

Rule 910G, which position is consistent with another options exchange
that trade FLEX Options.\23\ In short, a FLEX Official has the
regulatory responsibility for reviewing the conformity of FLEX trades
to the terms and specifications contained in FLEX rules.\24\ Proposed
Rule 900G(b)(21) would define a FLEX Official as being an Exchange
employee that carries out the duties set forth in proposed Rule 910G,
FLEX Official. Pursuant to proposed Rule 910G(a), the Exchange may at
any time designate an Exchange employee to act as a FLEX Official in
one or more classes of FLEX Options and may also designate other
qualified employees to assist the FLEX Official as the need arises.
Further, a FLEX Official would have the regulatory responsibility for
reviewing the conformity of FLEX trades to the terms and specifications
contained in Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX Options), including posting FLEX
Requests for Quotes for dissemination; determining the BBO; ensuring
that FLEX contracts are executed in conformance with the priority
principles set forth in Rule 904G (FLEX Trading Procedures and
Principles); and calling upon Specialists to make FLEX Quotes in
specific classes of FLEX Equity Options, per Rule 927NY(c), which sets
forth the obligations of Specialists.\25\ In this regard, the Exchange
likewise proposes to modify Rule 904G(a)(i)-(ii) (FLEX Trading
Procedures and Principles) to clarify the FLEX Officials, not FLEX
Specialists, would handle Requests for Quotes from OTP Holders and OTP
Firms. The Exchange notes that these responsibilities were previously
handled by Specialists but are currently handled by FLEX Officials.\26\
The Exchange also proposes to modify reference to ``FLEX Post
Official'' in Rule 927NY to ``FLEX Official,'' which would add clarity
and transparency to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NYSE Arca Rules 5.30(b)(7) and 5.38.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See proposed Rule 910G(b)(1)-(5).
    \26\ See proposed Rule 904G(a)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, consistent with the foregoing changes, the Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 904G(a)(ii) and (c)(i)-(iii) to more accurately
reflect the handling of FLEX Quotes and requests for such quotes. When
the Exchange introduced FLEX Options, the Exchange displayed FLEX
Request for Quotes and FLEX Quotes at physical FLEX posts. However, as
trading in FLEX Options gained popularity, it became apparent that
liquidity for FLEX Options was more readily available at trading posts
where the standard options in the underlying security traded rather
than at a specific FLEX post. And, over time, Floor Participants would
ask Floor Brokers to communicate the existence of trading interest in
particular FLEX Options through various means to their customers and
correspondents. Thus, the Exchange proposes to revise the rules to
reflect that the FLEX Request for Quotes or the FLEX Quotes are
``disseminated'' (rather than displayed), which would add clarity and
transparency to Exchange rules.\27\ Similarly, because there are no
longer specific physical FLEX post on the Trading Floor, the Exchange
proposes to remove the FLEX modifier from Rule 904G(b)(i), such that
the revised rule text refers only to a ``post,'' which the Exchange
believes would add clarity and consistency to Exchange rules. The
Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change to Rule
904G(c)(ii) to replace a colon with a semi-colon. The Exchange believes
these changes would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency
to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 904G(a)(ii) and (c)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Obsolete Foreign Currencies. The Exchange proposes to
modify rule text relating to FLEX Options to remove obsolete references
to foreign currencies that are no longer in circulation, which would
add clarity and transparency to Exchange rules. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to remove references in the FLEX rules to Deutsche
Marks and French Francs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed 900G(b)(12), 903G(b)(3), 904G(g). The Exchange
also proposes to modify Rule 900G(b)(12) relating to the reference
to ``British Pound'' to both remove errant brackets and pluralize
``Pounds.'' See proposed 900G(b)(12), 904G(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Terms of FLEX Options. The Exchange proposes to modify
several aspects of Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX Options). First, the
Exchange proposes to clarify that each FLEX Request for Quote and FLEX
contract must contain the underlying security in the case of FLEX
Equity Options or (as opposed to ``and'') the underlying index, in the
case of FLEX Index Options.\29\ The Exchange also proposes to make a
non-substantive change to Rule 903G(c)(4) to clarify the reference to
Rule 805 of the Options Clearing Corporation.\30\ The Exchange believes
these changes would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency
to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed Rule 903G(a)(2)(i).
    \30\ See proposed 903G (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Financial Requirements for Specialist. The Exchange also
proposes to modify Rule 909G(c) to update the cross-reference regarding
the financial requirements of Specialists to Rule 927NY(c)(10), and to
remove the obsolete rule references to Rule 171 and Rule 950(h).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59454 (February
25, 2009), 74 FR 9461 (March 4, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-17)
(approving proposal to replace certain then-existing Alternext
Rules, including Rules 171 and 950 regarding the financial
requirements of Specialists, with Rule Section 900NY, including Rule
927NY (Specialists)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 903G(a)(2)(vii) to
make clear that the minimum size of one contract for FLEX Options
applies to both transactions (per current rule text) ``and quotations''
(per proposed rule text). This proposed change corresponds to the
Commission's approval, in 2014, of the Exchange's proposal to adopt on
a permanent basis its pilot program regarding minimum value sizes for
opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options and FLEX Quotes.\32\
The Exchange believes this change would add clarity and transparency to
Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 72536 (July 3,
2014) 79 FR 39425 (July 10, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 903G(c)(3) to address
exercise settlement of FLEX Options that are cash-settled, as the
current rule only addresses exercise settlement by physical
delivery.\33\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to designate the
current description of exercise settlement by physical delivery as
paragraph (3)(i) and to add a description of cash-settlement in
paragraph (3)(ii). Finally, the Exchange proposes paragraph (3)(iii) to
state that exercise settlement of FLEX ByRDs would the same as non-FLEX
ByRDs, pursuant to Rule 910ByRDs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Rule 903G(c)(3) currently provides that ``[e]xercise
settlement shall be by physical delivery of the underlying
security.''
    \34\ See proposed Rule 903G(c)(3)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify Commentary .01 to Rule 903G,
to provide that FLEX Options may be permitted in puts and calls that do
not have identical terms, including, as proposed, ``the same settlement
style.'' Commentary .01 to Rule 903G is designed to prevent the trading
of a FLEX Option that has the exact same terms (underlying security,
exercise style, expiration date, exercise price and, as proposed,
settlement style) as a Standard or (non-FLEX) Option. In other words,
as long as just one term of the FLEX Option is different from an
existing ``regular'' or ``non-FLEX'' option it may be traded as a FLEX
Option.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\35\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\36\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to add FLEX ByRDs would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market as FLEX ByRDs would enable market participants to negotiate
terms that differ from standardized ByRDs, which would, in turn provide
greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the use of
FLEX Options to the benefit of investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit additional
settlement types--Asian, Cliquet and VWAP--would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the
proposed rule change would provide OTP Holders with enhanced methods to
manage risk by more finely tailoring a FLEX Option, within specified
limits, to the underlying security or index through a variety of
settlement calculations and styles. In addition, this proposal would
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the general public because the additional settlement styles for
FLEX Options would provide investors with additional trading and
hedging tools. Further, the Exchange notes that its proposal to offer
Asian and Cliquet-style settlement for FLEX Index Options is consistent
with the rules of another options exchange and therefore raise no novel
issues for the Commission.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra n. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that permitting VWAP Settlement, which would be
available for FLEX Equity Options and FLEX ByRDs, would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because the proposed rule change would provide market participants with
a method to offset risk for a large position, regardless of whether the
position in the underlying was established using a VWAP methodology.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to FLEX Exercise Prices
and Premiums would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market as this change would provide greater flexibility
in terms of describing an option contract tailored to the needs of the
investor. In addition, the proposed changes would promote internal
consistency in our own rules and would align our rules with that of
another options exchange and therefore raise no novel issues for the
Commission.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See supra nn. 16, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the proposed settlement styles, the Exchange would use
the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's
other FLEX Options, including FLEX Index Options. The Exchange further
represents that these surveillance procedures shall be adequate to
monitor trading in options on these option products. For surveillance
purposes, the Exchange would have complete access to information
regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
    Finally, the remaining proposed changes to FLEX Options would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market as the changes correct inaccuracies in rule text and update the
rules to better reflect the Exchange's current practices with respect
to FLEX Options, which have evolved over time. The Exchange believes
the proposed changes would provide transparency and internal
consistency within Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and
the investing public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate
and comprehend.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is designed to
increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is
beneficial to investors because it is designed to provide investors
seeking to effect FLEX Option orders with the opportunity for different
methods of settling option contracts at expiration. The proposed
changes are also designed to update Exchange rules regarding FLEX
Options, including by removing obsolete references, which should
likewise improve the competitiveness of the Exchange by making it a
more attractive venue for trading.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues who offer similar functionality. The Exchange also believes the
proposed rule change promotes competition because it would enable the
Exchange to provide market participants with FLEX Options transaction
possibilities that are similar to that of other options exchanges. The
Exchange believes the proposed rules encourage competition amongst
market participants to provide tailored FLEX Options contracts.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<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
August 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17201 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P