[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50830-50831]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20953]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0697: FRL-10000-41-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Iron and Steel
Foundries (EPA ICR Number 2096.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0543), to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30,
2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on May 6, 2019 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 28,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0697, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63
Subpart EEEEE) apply to both existing and new iron and steel foundry
facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions.

    Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply
with reporting and record keeping requirements for the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as the applicable
standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. This includes submitting
initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and
results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with
these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Iron and steel foundries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 14,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,880,000 (per year), which includes
$246,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in the total
estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. The
decrease in burden is an adjustment due to more accurate estimates of
existing and anticipated new sources. The estimate of sources is based
on Agency analyses conducted during the development the Risk and
Technology Review for this subpart. The reduction in sources led to a
decrease in burden hours and costs for labor, capital, and operation
and maintenance. Activities for existing sources include continuous
monitoring of pollutants and the submission of semiannual reports.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20953 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11975-11985]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80075; File No. SR-ISE-2017-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in
Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology

February 21, 2017.
    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 February 8, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend various rules in connection with a
system migration to Nasdaq INET technology.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to amend certain rules to
reflect the ISE technology migration to a Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'')
supported architecture. INET is the proprietary core technology
utilized across Nasdaq's global markets and utilized on The NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and NASDAQ BX,
Inc. (``BX'') (collectively, ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). The migration of
ISE to the Nasdaq INET architecture would result in higher performance,
scalability, and more robust architecture. With this system migration,
the Exchange intends to adopt certain trading functionality currently
utilized at Nasdaq Exchanges. The functionality being adopted is
described in this filing.
    The Exchange is also separately filing \3\ a rule change to amend
the Exchange's Opening Process. ISE will replace its current opening
process at Rule 701 with Phlx's Opening Process.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-ISE-2017-02 (not yet published).
    \4\ See Phlx Rule 1017. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 79274 (November 9, 2016), 81 FR 80694 (November 16, 2016) (SR-
Phlx-2017-79) (notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 2 and Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial
Amendment No. 2, to Amend PHLX Rule 1017, Openings in Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule
changes in Q2 2017. The migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis,
and the Exchange will issue an alert to members in the form of an
Options Trader Alert to provide notification of the symbols that will
migrate and the relevant dates.
Generally
    With the re-platform, the Exchange will now be built on the Nasdaq
INET architecture, which allows certain trading system functionality to
be performed in parallel. The Exchange believes that this architecture
change will improve the member experience by reducing overall latency
compared to the current ISE system because of the manner in which the
system is segregated into component parts to handle processing.

Trading Halts
Cancellation of Quotes
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 702 entitled ``Trading
Halts.'' Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) to
note that during a halt, the Exchange will maintain existing orders on
the book, but not existing quotes prior to the halt, accept orders and
quotes, and process cancels and modifications for quotes and orders,
except that existing quotes are cancelled. Today, ISE maintains
existing orders and quotes during a trading halt. With respect to
cancels and modifications, this behavior will not change. ISE does not
have a quote purge today, so this functionality will be changed with
the adoption of this trading rule. The Exchange believes that purging
quotes upon a halt will remove uncertainty for market participants.
    The Exchange proposes to conform the treatment of quotes and orders
on ISE to Phlx Rule 1047(f) in conjunction with the replatform of ISE.
The Exchange desires to handle halts in a similar manner as Phlx.
Limit Up-Limit Down
    The Exchange also proposes to add new ISE Rule 702(d) to replace
rule text currently contained in ISE Rule 703A entitled ``Trading
During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities.'' Proposed
ISE Rule 702(d) is similar to language currently in Phlx Rule 1047,
entitled ``Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying
Securities.'' Proposed ISE Rule 702(d) is similar to language currently
in Phlx Rule 1047(d), which provides for Exchange handling due to
extraordinary market volatility. Currently ISE Rule 703A(a) and (b)
provides modified order handling procedures when a security underlying
an options class traded on the Exchange enters a Limit State or
Straddle State under the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility (the ``Plan'').\5\ Specifically, during a Limit State or
Straddle State: (1) Incoming Market Orders are automatically rejected,
and all unexecuted Market Orders pending in the System are cancelled,
and (2) incoming Stop Orders (which become Market Orders if elected)
are automatically rejected, and unexecuted Stop Orders pending in the
System cannot be elected and will be held until the end of the Limit
State or Straddle State. In addition, ISE Rule 703A(c) provides that
when the security underlying an option class is in a Limit State or
Straddle State, the maximum quotation spread requirements for market
maker quotes contained in ISE Rule 803(b)(5) and the continuous
quotation requirements contained in ISE Rule 804(e) shall be
suspended.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan. As set forth
in more detail in the Plan, Price Bands consisting of a Lower Price
Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS Stock are calculated by
the Processors (Section V(A) of the Plan). When the National Best
Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band, the
Processors shall disseminate such National Best Bid (Offer) with an
appropriate flag identifying it as unexecutable. When the National
Best Bid (Offer) is equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the
Processors shall distribute such National Best Bid (Offer) with an
appropriate flag identifying it as a Limit State Quotation (Section
VI(A) of the Plan). All trading centers in NMS stocks must maintain
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
prevent the display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids
above the Upper Price Band for NMS stocks. Notwithstanding this
requirement, the Processor shall display an offer below the Lower
Price Band or a bid above the Upper Price Band, but with a flag that
it is non-executable. Such bids or offers shall not be included in
the National Best Bid or National Best Offer calculations (Section
VI(A)(3) of the Plan). Trading in an NMS stock immediately enters a
Limit State if the National Best Offer (Bid) equals but does not
cross the Lower (Upper) Price Band (Section VI(B)(1) of the Plan.
Trading for an NMS stock exits a Limit State if, within 15 seconds
of entering the Limit State, all Limit State Quotations were
executed or canceled in their entirety. If the market does not exit
a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the Primary Listing Exchange
would declare a five-minute trading pause pursuant to Section VII of
the Plan, which would be applicable to all markets trading the
security. The primary listing market would declare a Trading Pause
in an NMS stock; upon notification by the primary listing market,
the Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS stock could occur during the trading pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed (Section VII(A) of the Plan).
In addition, the Plan defines a Straddle State as when the National
Best Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and
the NMS stock is not in a Limit State. For example, assume the Lower
Price Band for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the Upper Price Band is
$10.50, such NMS stock would be in a Straddle State if the National
Best Bid were below $9.50, and therefore unexecutable, and the
National Best Offer were above $9.50 (including a National Best
Offer that could be above $10.50). If an NMS stock is in a Straddle
State and trading in that stock deviates from normal trading
characteristics, the Primary Listing Exchange may declare a trading
pause for that NMS stock if such Trading Pause would support the
Plan's goal to address extraordinary market volatility.
    \6\ The time periods associated with Limit States and Straddle
States are not considered by the Exchange when evaluating whether a
market maker complied with the continuous quotation requirements
contained in Rule 804(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the re-platform, the Exchange will adopt opening limitation,
Market Order and Stop Order handling consistent with handling today on
Phlx.\7\ Specifically, proposed ISE Rule 702(d) will provide that
during a Limit State and Straddle State in the Underlying NMS stock:
(i) The Exchange will not open an affected option, (ii) provided the
Exchange has opened an affected option for trading, the Exchange shall
reject Market Orders,\8\ as defined in ISE Rule 715(a), and shall
notify Members of the reason for such rejection, and (iii) provided the
Exchange has opened an affected option for trading, the Exchange will
elect Stop Orders if the condition is met, and, because they become
Market Orders, shall cancel them back and notify Members of the reason
for such rejection. The language in proposed ISE Rule 703(d)(iv)
concerning the maximum quotation spread requirements for market maker
quotes and the continuous quotation requirements suspensions are the
same language currently contained in ISE Rule 703A(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(ii) and (iii).
    \8\ This includes complex orders as well as single leg orders.
The Exchange shall cancel complex orders that are Market Orders
residing in the System if they are about to be executed by the
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These amendments differ in certain respects from the manner in
which ISE operates today during a Limit State or Straddle State. The
current ISE rule does not address the opening. The Exchange proposes to
adopt rule text to provide for how the Exchange shall treat the opening
rotation.\9\ The opening in an option will not commence in the event
that the underlying NMS stock is open, but has entered into a Limit
State or Straddle State. If this occurs, the opening will only commence
and complete if the underlying NMS stock stays out of a Limit or
Straddle State. Accordingly, proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(i) will provide
that the Exchange will not open an affected option. As a result, if an
opening process is occurring, it will cease and then start the opening
process from the beginning once the Limit State or Straddle State is no
longer occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, ISE currently cancels Market Orders pending in the
System upon initiation of a Limit or Straddle State. Under the proposal
to adopt the Phlx rule and implementation of the Limit Up-Limit Down
procedures, Market Orders pending in the System will continue to be
processed regardless of the Limit or Straddle State. The Exchange
believes this is a reasonable handling of Market Orders in the system
since these orders are only pending in the System if they are exposed
at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901 or
a complex order exposed for price improvement pursuant to ISE Rule
722(b)(3)(iii). In both cases, if at the end of the exposure period the
affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State, the Market Order
will be

cancelled with no execution occurring. If at the end of the exposure
period the underlying is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State, the
Market Order will be handled under the normal operation of the rules.
    Lastly, ISE does not currently elect Stop Orders that are pending
in the System during a Limit or Straddle State. Under the proposal, and
in-line with the Phlx implementation, Stop Orders that are pending in
the System during a Limit or Straddle State will be elected, if
conditions for such election are met, however because they become
Market Orders will be cancelled back to the Member with a reason for
such rejection.
    While the implementation of Market and Stop Order handling varies
from ISE today, both the current and proposed Rule provide for
protections from erroneous executions in a highly volatile period.\10\
The Exchange believes consistency across the six options markets
operated by Nasdaq, Inc. provides clarity for Members as to how their
orders, as well as the opening process, will be handled in a Limit or
Straddle State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange is introducing a Phlx protection, Acceptable
Trade Range, into ISE Rules as discussed within this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auction Handling During a Trading Halt
    The Exchange proposes to amend various rules to add detail to ISE
rules to account for the impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's
auction mechanisms. The Exchange proposes to memorialize within ISE
Rule 723, entitled ``Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing
Transactions'' the manner in which a trading halt will impact an order
entered into PIM once it is migrated to the INET architecture.
    Today, if a trading halt is initiated after a single leg order is
entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') on ISE, such
auction is terminated and eligible interest is executed or in the case
of a complex order entered into PIM, the auction is terminated and
eligible interest is cancelled without execution. The Exchange is
amending the behavior with respect to single leg orders in PIM auctions
to terminate the auction and not execute eligible interest when a
trading halt occurs. In the event of a trading halt, terminating the
auction and not executing eligible interest will provide certainty to
participants in regard to how their interest will be handled.
Introducing consistent order handling, regardless of single leg or
complex, and memorializing the manner in which the system will handle
all orders entered into PIM during a trading halt will provide
transparency for the benefit of members and investors. The Exchange is
not amending the behavior with respect to complex orders in PIM
auctions.
    The Exchange proposes an amendment to ISE Rule 716, entitled
``Block Trades'' to memorialize that if a trading halt is initiated
after an order is entered into the Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation
Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism, such auction will also be
automatically terminated without execution. This is the current
behavior today on ISE and will not be changing.
    As discussed above, Phlx Rule 1047(c) provides that in the event
the Exchange halts trading, all trading in the affected option shall be
halted. This is interpreted to restrict executions after a halt unless
there is a specific rule specifying that such trades should take place.
The Exchange is proposing to add more specificity into the relevant
rules. With respect to Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism,
or Solicited Order Mechanism, the Exchange notes that the current
behavior is consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c) generally, where all
trading in the affected option shall be halted.\11\ In the event of a
trading halt, terminating these auction mechanisms and not executing
eligible interest will provide certainty to participants in regard to
how their interest will be handled. Memorializing the manner in which
the system will handle orders during a trading halt will provide
transparency for the benefit of members and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Phlx Rule 1047(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Order Spread Protection
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 711, entitled ``Acceptance
of Quotes and Orders'' to adopt a new mandatory risk protection
entitled Market Order Spread Protection which will apply to single leg
Market Orders. ISE does not have a similar feature today. This
mandatory feature is currently offered on NOM to protect Market Orders
from being executed in very wide markets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c). NOM's current
rule states, ``System Orders that are Market Orders will be rejected
if the best of the NBBO and the internal market BBO (the ``Reference
BBO'') is wider than a preset threshold at the time the order is
received by the System.'' NOM has two order types, Price-Improving
and Post-Only Orders, which result in non-displayed pricing that may
cause the internal market BBO to be better than the NBBO. ISE does
not have similar non-displayed order types and therefore the
reference to the internal market BBO is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed ISE Rule 711(c), if the NBBO is wider than a
preset threshold at the time a Market Order is received, the order will
be rejected. For example, if the Market Order Spread Protection is set
to $20.00, and a Market Order to buy is received while the NBBO is
$1.00-$50.00, such Market Order will be rejected. The proposed feature
would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by
mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at
prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially
erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially
receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
The Exchange proposes this feature to avoid a series of improperly
priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book.
    Today, the NOM threshold is set at $5. ISE will initially set the
threshold to $5. Similar to NOM, the Exchange will notify Members of
the threshold with a notice, and, thereafter, Members will be notified
of any subsequent changes to the threshold. NOM set the differential at
$5 to match the bid/ask differential permitted for quotes on the
Exchange.\13\ ISE has a similar $5 differential.\14\ Thus, the presence
of a quote on the Exchange will ensure the NBBO is at least $5 wide.
The Exchange believes the presence of a quote on the Exchange, or a
bid/ask differential of the NBBO, which is no more than $5 wide affords
Market Orders proper protection against erroneous execution and in the
event a bid/ask differential is more than $5, then a Market Order is
rejected. The threshold is appropriate because it seeks to capture
improperly priced Market Orders and reject them to reduce the risk of,
and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Market Orders at
prices that may be considered erroneous. The Exchange's proposed
threshold is a reasonable measure to ensure prices remain within the
reasonable limits. This protection will bolster the normal resilience
and market behavior that persistently produces robust reference prices.
This feature should create a level of protection that

prevents Market Orders from entering the Order Book outside of an
acceptable range for the Market Order to execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Chapter VII, Section 6(d)(ii) of NOM Rules which
describes the bid/ask differentials. Options on equities (including
Exchange-Traded Fund Shares), and on index options must be quoted
with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer
regardless of the price of the bid, including before and during the
opening. However, respecting in-the-money series where the market
for the underlying security is wider than $5, the bid/ask
differential may be as wide as the quotation for the underlying
security on the primary market. The Exchange may establish
differences other than the above for one or more series or classes
of options.
    \14\ See ISE Rule 803(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Market Order Spread Protection will be the same for
all options traded on the Exchange, and is applicable to all Members
that submit Market Orders.
Acceptable Trade Range
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 714, entitled ``Automatic
Execution of Orders,'' at ISE Rule 714(b)(1) to adopt Phlx's Acceptable
Trade Range for single leg orders.\15\ The Exchange is proposing to
adopt similar functionality which is currently utilized on Phlx in
connection with the replatform of ISE for single leg orders. Today, ISE
places a limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming order
or quote to sell (buy) will be executed automatically when there are no
bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series.
Orders and quotes are executed at each successive price level until the
maximum number of price levels is reached, and any balance is either
handled by the Primary Market Maker pursuant to Rule 803(c)(1) (in the
case of Priority Customer Orders) or canceled (in the case of
Professional Orders). The number of price levels, may be between one
(1) and ten (10). The Exchange determines the number of price levels
from time-to-time on a class-by-class basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p). Today, ISE places a limit on the
number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell
(buy) will be executed automatically for single leg and complex
orders when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any
price for the options series. Orders and quotes are executed at each
successive price level until the maximum number of price levels is
reached, and any balance is either handled by the Primary Market
Maker pursuant to Rule 803(c)(1) (in the case of Priority Customer
Orders) or canceled (in the case of Professional Orders). The number
of price levels, may be between one (1) and ten (10). The Exchange
determines the number of price levels from time-to-time on a class-
by-class basis. This proposal only impacts single leg orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE proposes to replace the current Price Level Protection applied
to single leg orders with Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range.\16\ The
proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism to prevent the system
from experiencing dramatic price swings by creating a level of
protection that prevents the market from moving beyond set thresholds.
The thresholds consist of a reference price plus (minus) set dollar
amounts based on the nature of the option and the premium of the
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that the version of Acceptable Trade
Range to be implemented on ISE will not include the posting period
functionality available today on Phlx. The proposed rules reflect
this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The system will calculate an Acceptable Trade Range to limit the
range of prices at which an order or quote will be allowed to execute.
To bolster the normal resilience and market behavior that persistently
produces robust reference prices, ISE is proposing to create a level of
protection that prevents the market from moving beyond set thresholds.
The Acceptable Trade Range is calculated (upon receipt of a new order
or quote) by taking the reference price, plus or minus a value to be
determined by the Exchange (i.e., the reference price-(x) for sell
orders/quotes and the reference price + (x) for buy orders).\17\ Upon
receipt of a new order, the reference price is the National Best Bid
(``NBB'') for sell orders/quotes and the National Best Offer (``NBO'')
for buy orders/quotes. If an order or quote reaches the outer limit of
the Acceptable Trade Range (the ``Threshold Price'') without being
fully executed, then any unexecuted balance will be cancelled. The
proposed Acceptable Trade Range would work as follows: Prior to
executing orders received by ISE, an Acceptable Trade Range is
calculated to determine the range of prices at which orders/quotes may
be executed.\18\ When an order is initially received, the threshold is
calculated by adding (for buy orders/quotes) or subtracting (for sell
orders/quotes) a value,\19\ as discussed below, to the National Best
Offer for buy orders/quotes or the National Best Bid for sell orders/
quotes to determine the range of prices that are valid for execution. A
buy (sell) order or quote will be allowed to execute up (down) to and
including the maximum (minimum) price within the Acceptable Trade
Range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Acceptable Trade Range settings are tied to the option
premium.
    \18\ The Acceptable Trade Range will not be available for all-
or-none orders. Today, ISE's Price Level Protection rule is not
available for all-or-none orders. The Exchange has determined that
it would be difficult, from a technical standpoint, to apply this
feature to those orders because their particular contingency makes
it difficult to automate their handling.
    \19\ The value that is to be added to/subtracted from the
reference price will be set by ISE and posted on its Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, in a thinly traded option:
    Away Exchange Quotes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exchange                         Bid size        Bid price      Offer price     Offer size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOM.............................................              10           $1.00           $1.05              10
NYSE Arca.......................................              10            1.00            1.05              10
NYSE MKT........................................              10            1.00            1.10              10
BOX.............................................              10            1.00            1.15              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE Price Levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Exchange                         Bid size        Bid price      Offer price     Offer size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISE orders......................................              10           $1.00           $1.05              10
ISE orders......................................  ..............  ..............            1.10              10
ISE orders......................................  ..............  ..............            1.40              10
ISE orders......................................  ..............  ..............            5.00              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If ISE receives a routable market order to buy 80 contracts, the
System will respond as described below:

--10 contracts will be executed at $1.05 against ISE
--10 contracts will be executed at $1.05 against NOM
--10 contracts will be executed at $1.05 against NYSE Arca
--10 contracts will be executed at $1.10 against ISE
--10 contracts will be executed at $1.10 against NYSE MKT
--10 contracts will be executed at $1.15 against BOX

    After these executions, there are no other known valid away
exchange

quotes. The National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') is therefore comprised
of the remaining interest on the ISE book, specifically 10 contracts at
$1.40 and 10 contracts at $5.00. In the absence of an Acceptable Trade
Range mechanism, the order would execute against the remaining interest
at $1.40 and $5.00, resulting in potential harm to investors.
    ISE will set the parameters of the mechanism at levels that will
ensure that it is triggered quite infrequently. Importantly, the
Acceptable Trade Range is neutral with respect to away markets, an
order may route to other destinations to access liquidity priced within
the Acceptable Trade Range provided the order is designated as
routable.
    The options premium will be the dominant factor in determining the
Acceptable Trade Range. Generally, options with lower premiums tend to
be more liquid and have tighter bid/ask spreads; options with higher
premiums have wider spreads and less liquidity. Accordingly, a table
consisting of several steps based on the premium of the option will be
used to determine how far the market for a given option will be allowed
to move. This table or tables would be listed on the NASDAQTrader.com
Web site and any periodic updates to the table would be announced via
an Options Trader Alert.
    For example, looking at some SPY May 2013 Call options on May 1st
of 2013:

Bid/Offer of SPY May 160 Call (at or near-the-money): $1.23 x $1.24
(several hundred contracts on bid and offer)
Bid/Offer of SPY May 105 Call (deep in-the-money): $54.10 x $54.26
(11 contracts on each side)

The deep in-the-money calls (May 105 calls) have a wider spread ($54.10
- $54.26 = $0.16) compared to a spread of $0.01 for the at-the-money
calls (May 160 calls). Therefore, it is appropriate to have different
thresholds for the two options. For instance, it may make sense to have
a $0.05 threshold for the at-the-money strikes (Premium <$2) and a
$0.50 threshold for the deep in-the-money strikes (Premium >$10).
    To consider another example, the May 2013 ORCL put options on May
1st of 2013:

Bid/Offer of ORCL 33 May Put (at or near-the-money): $0.33 x $0.34
(100 x 500)
Bid/Offer of ORCL 44 May Put (deep in-the-money): $10.40 x $10.55
(50 x 200)

    Even though ORCL has a much lower share price than SPY, and is a
different type of security (it is a common stock of a technology
company whereas SPY is an ETF based on the S&P 500 Index), the pattern
is the same. The option with the lower premium has a very narrow spread
of $0.01 with significant size displayed whereas the higher premium
option has a wide spread ($0.15) and less size displayed.
    The Acceptable Trade Range settings will be tied to the option
premium. However, other factors will be considered when determining the
exact settings. For example, acceptable ranges may change if market-
wide volatility is as high as it was during the financial crisis in
2008 and 2009, or if overall liquidity is low based on historical
trends. These different market conditions may present the need to
adjust the threshold amounts from time to time to ensure a well-
functioning market. Without adjustments, the market may become too
constrained or conversely, prone to wide price swings. As stated above,
the Exchange would publish the Acceptable Trade Range table or tables
on the Exchange Web site. The Exchange does not foresee updating the
table(s) often or intraday, although the exchange may determine to do
so in extreme circumstances. The Exchange will provide sufficient
advanced notice of changes to the Acceptable Trade Range table,
generally the prior day, to its membership via an Exchange alert.
    The Acceptable Trade Range settings would generally be the same
across all options traded on ISE, although ISE proposes to maintain
flexibility to set them separately based on characteristics of the
underlying security. For instance, Google is a stock with a high share
price ($824.57 closing price on April 30, 2013). Google options
therefore may require special settings due to the risk involved in
actively quoting options on such a high-priced stock. Option spreads on
Google are wider and the size available at the best bid and offer is
smaller. Google could potentially need a wider threshold setting
compared to other lower-priced stocks. There are other options that fit
into this category (e.g., AAPL) which makes it necessary to have
threshold settings that have flexibility based on the underlying
security. Additionally, it is generally observed that options subject
to the Penny Pilot program quote with tighter spreads than options not
subject to the Penny Pilot. Currently, ISE expects to set Acceptable
Trade Ranges for three categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot Options
trading in one cent increments for options trading at less than $3.00
and increments of five cents for options trading at $3.00 or more, (2)
Penny Pilot Options trading in one-cent increments for all prices, and
(3) Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    The Phlx rule contains language that references a posting
period.\20\ Specifically, the Phlx Rule provides if an order/quote
reaches the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range (the ``Threshold
Price'') without being fully executed, it will be posted at the
Threshold Price for a brief period, not to exceed one second (``Posting
Period''), to allow more liquidity to be collected, unless a Quote
Exhaust has occurred, in which case the Quote Exhaust process in Phlx
Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3) will ensue, triggering a new Reference
Price.\21\ The Exchange will not post interest that exceeds the outer
limit of the Acceptable Trade Range, rather the interest will be
cancelled. Only if the order limit does not exceed the Acceptable Trade
Range will it post on the Exchange, if not otherwise executed. Further,
the Phlx rule provides for the re-pricing of that order or quote and
calculation of a new Acceptable Trade Range. Consistent with the
current treatment of orders and quotes under ISE rules, the Exchange is
not adopting the posting period. Unlike Phlx, ISE does not offer a
general continuous re-pricing mechanism, and does not consider
iterations in its current functionality.\22\ ISE would cancel rather
than reprice orders which exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable
Trade Range. Orders which do not exceed the outer limit of the
Acceptable Trade Range will post to the order book and will reside on
the order book at such price until they are either executed in full or
cancelled by the Member. Additionally, resting orders do not re-price
on the order book as they do today on Phlx. For these reasons, the
unexecuted balance which exceeds the outer limit of the Acceptable
Trade

Range will be cancelled, rather than posted to the order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(1)(B).
    \21\ The Quote Exhaust process occurs when the Exchange's
disseminated market at a particular price level includes a quote,
and such market is exhausted by an inbound contra-side quote or
order, and following such exhaustion, contracts remain to be
executed from such quote or order through the initial execution
price.
    \22\ With respect to trade-throughs and locked and crossed
markets, a Phlx order will not be executed at a price that trades
through another market or is displayed at a price that would lock or
cross another market. If, at the time of entry, an order that the
entering party has elected not to make eligible for routing would
cause a locked or crossed market violation or would cause a trade-
through violation, it will be re-priced to the current national best
offer (for bids) or the current national best bid (for offers) and
displayed at one minimum price variance above (for offers) or below
(for bids) the national best price. See Phlx Rule 1080(m)(iv)(A). In
the instance that the System automatically reprices an order or
quote, the System would assign the orders or quote a new timestamp
and the order or quote will be reprioritized within the Order Book
in accordance with the priority rules in Phlx Rule 1014 (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For complex orders, the Exchange will continue to apply the Price
Level Protection Rule which is being relocated to Rule 714(b)(4) and
revised to specifically state that the Price Level Protection shall
apply to complex orders. The functionality will remain the same. The
Exchange is amending the current rule to remove references that
specifically related to single leg order functionality. Primary Market
Maker handling does not apply to complex orders and therefore is being
removed from the rule text. The Exchange is also adding references to
component legs to make clear the application to complex orders. Unlike
single leg orders which are subject to trade-through protections,
complex orders do not have similar restrictions and therefore the
Exchange believes that the current Price Level Protection Rule provides
a better protection for complex orders because the Acceptable Trade
Range protection described within this filing utilizes the NBBO and the
Price Level Protection does not rely on the NBBO but rather limits the
number of price levels.
PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations
    Today, PMMs are responsible for handling Priority Customer orders
that are not automatically executed pursuant to ISE Rule 714(b)(1),
i.e., the Price Level Protection, and to initiate the opening rotation
in each series pursuant to ISE Rule 701. This responsibility is
described in each of those rules, as well as in ISE Rule 803(c), which
provides that:

    In addition to the obligations contained in this Rule for market
makers generally, for options classes to which a market maker is the
appointed Primary Market Maker, it shall have the responsibility to:
(1) As soon as practical, address Priority Customer Orders that are
not automatically executed pursuant to Rule 714(b)(1) in a manner
consistent with its obligations under paragraph (b) of this Rule by
either (i) executing all or a portion of the order at a price that
at least matches the NBBO and that improves upon the Exchange's best
bid (in the case of a sell order) or the Exchange's best offer (in
the case of a buy order); or (ii) releasing all or a portion of the
order for execution against bids and offers on the Exchange. (2)
Initiate trading in each series pursuant to Rule 701.

    As described in more detail in the sections above, with the re-
platform to Nasdaq technology, the Exchange is adopting Acceptable
Trade Range and opening rotation functionality currently offered on NOM
and Phlx, which do not contain similar requirements for the PMM. The
Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate the PMM order handling and
opening obligations in Rule 803(c).
    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the PMM obligation to
initiate the opening rotation in this rule is appropriate because the
proposed opening process \23\ is initiated by the receipt of an
appropriate number of valid width Primary Market Maker or Competitive
Market Maker quotes as outlined in proposed ISE Rule 701(c)(i).
Similarly, the Acceptable Trade Range functionality will continue to
provide an important protection to members without imposing any Primary
Market Maker obligations. Today, Phlx does not have similar roles for a
Specialist on its market. In connection with the replatform, the
Exchange will conform its rules with those of Phlx with respect to the
manner in which it operates the Opening Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back-Up PMM
    The Exchange also proposes to amend ISE Supplementary Material .03
to Rule 803 to eliminate its Back-Up Primary Market Maker program.
Today, any ISE Member that is approved to act in the capacity of a
Primary Market Maker may voluntarily act as a ``Back-Up Primary Market
Maker'' in options series in which it is quoting as a Competitive
Market Maker. A Back-Up Primary Market Maker assumes all of the
responsibilities and privileges of a Primary Market Maker under the
Exchange's rules with respect to any series in which the appointed
Primary Market Maker fails to have a quote in the System except that a
Back-Up Primary Market Maker's quoting obligations are the same as the
quoting obligations for Competitive Market Makers as described in ISE
Rule 804(e)(2)(iii) and .02 of Supplementary Material to Rule 804.\24\
If more than one Competitive Market Maker that has volunteered to be a
Back-Up Primary Market Maker is quoting in an options series at the
time that a Primary Market Maker ceases quoting, the Competitive Market
Maker with the largest offer at the lowest price in the series at that
time will be chosen to be the Back-Up Primary Market Maker. In the
event of a tie based on price and size, the Competitive Market Maker
with time priority will be automatically chosen. The Back-Up Primary
Market Maker is automatically restored to Competitive Market Maker
status when the appointed Primary Market Maker initiates quoting in the
series. The obligations of a Primary Market Maker include the
initiation of a trading rotation pursuant to ISE Rule 701, quoting and
other obligations pursuant to ISE Rules 803 and 804, and financial
requirements pursuant to ISE Rule 809. The Exchange is proposing to
amend the obligations of a PMM only with regard to the initiation of a
trading rotation pursuant to ISE Rule 701. The quoting and financial
requirements rules shall remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange notes that the current rule text for Back-up
Primary Market Maker on ISE does not indicate that quoting
obligations for Back-up Primary Market Makers are the same as for
Competitive Market Makers. This, however, has been the Exchange's
practice. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76936 (January 20,
2016), 81 FR 4347 (January 26, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the re-platform, a Back-Up Primary Market Maker is no longer
necessary since the order handling obligations present on ISE today are
not going to be present in the new system. Furthermore, the proposed
Opening Process obviates the importance of such a role. The Opening
Process describes the entry of quotes by both a Primary Market Maker
and a Competitive Market Maker, provided they are Valid Width
Quotes.\25\ The Opening Process further describes alternative methods
to open the market if such quotes are not entered at the opening by
either of these market makers.\26\ The reliance on a market maker to
initiate the opening process is no longer present within the proposed
rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A Valid Width Quote is a two-sided electronic quotation
submitted by a Market Maker that consists of a bid/ask differential
that is compliant with ISE proposed Rule 803(b)(4). See note 3
above.
    \26\ See note 3 above.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Speed Bump
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 804, entitled ``Market
Maker Quotations'' to establish default parameters for certain risk
functionality. The Exchange offers a risk protection mechanism for
market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an options class
if a specified number of curtailment events occur during a set time
period (``Market Maker Speed Bump''). In addition, the Exchange offers
a market-wide risk protection that removes a market maker's quotes
across all classes if a number of curtailment events occur (``Market-
Wide Speed Bump'').\28\ ISE Rule 804(g) currently requires that market
makers set curtailment parameters for both the Market Maker Speed Bump
and the Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today, if a market maker does not set
these parameters their quotes are rejected by

the trading system for each of the speed bumps mentioned herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Market makers may request the Exchange to set the market
wide parameter to apply to just ISE or across ISE and ISE Gemini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the re-platform, the Exchange has determined to provide
default curtailment parameters to assist market makers when they do not
enter their own parameters into the system. The default parameters will
be determined by the Exchange and announced to members. Rather than
rejecting quotes, the default parameters would be instituted. The
default parameters are important because market makers at ISE have
quoting obligations as specified in ISE Rule 804. When a market maker's
quotes are removed from the system, the time does not count toward the
continuous quoting obligations. The Exchange believes that allowing for
default settings would cause quotes not to be rejected and would assist
market makers in meeting their quoting obligations because they would
not have their quotes removed from the market. Today, Phlx indicates
default parameters for its detection of loss of communication
settings.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Phlx Rule 1019(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Internalization
    The Exchange proposes to amend the ISE Supplementary Material at
.03 to Rule 804, entitled ``Market Maker Quotations'' to adopt Anti-
Internalization rule. Today, ISE's functionality prevents Immediate-or-
Cancel (``IOC'') \30\ orders entered by a market maker from trading
with the market maker's own quote.\31\. [sic] As implemented, if an IOC
order entered by a market maker would trade with a quote entered by the
same market maker, that order will instead be allocated to other
interest at the same price, and the balance cancelled. The Exchange
proposes to replace this self-trade protection functionality with Anti-
Internalization functionality currently offered on Phlx.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ An IOC order is a limit order that is to be executed in
whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is to be
treated as cancelled. See Rule 715(b)(3).
    \31\ This functionality is not memorialized in ISE's rules.
    \32\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Phlx provides anti-internalization (``AIQ'') functionality
to Specialists and Registered Options Traders (``collectively market
makers''). Quotes and orders entered by Phlx market makers using the
same badge \33\ are not executed against quotes and orders entered on
the opposite side of the market using the same badge. This
automatically prevents these quotes and orders from interacting with
each other in the System. On Phlx, the system cancels the resting quote
or order back to the entering party prior to execution. This
functionality does not apply in any auction or with respect to complex
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ A badge is the same as a market participant identifier
(``MPID'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a similar rule that provides that
quotes and orders entered by Market Makers using the same member
identifier will not be executed against quotes and orders entered on
the opposite side of the market by the same market maker using the same
member identifier. In such a case, the system will cancel the resting
quote or order back to the entering party prior to execution. This
functionality shall not apply in any auction or with respect to complex
transactions. AIQ is difficult to apply during auctions, and there is
limited benefit in doing so. There is limited benefit because,
generally speaking, auctions do not raise the same policy concerns for
wash sales and ERISA \34\ due to the semi-random manner in which trades
are matched. AIQ is unnecessary with respect to complex orders due to
the highly specialized nature of such orders and the high level of
control that market participants exercise over complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ AIQ also is designed to assist market participants in
complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/or
limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as
principal with orders generated for those accounts. It can also
assist Market Makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted
executions potentially resulting from the interaction of executable
buy and sell trading interest from the same firm when performing the
same market making function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This functionality does not relieve or otherwise modify the duty of
best execution owed to orders received from public customers. Market
Makers generally do not display public customer orders in market making
quotations, opting instead to enter public customer orders using
separate identifiers. In the event that a Market Maker opts to include
a public customer order within a market making quotation, the Market
Maker must take appropriate steps to ensure that public customer orders
that do not execute due to anti-internalization functionality
ultimately receive the same execution price (or better) they would have
originally obtained if execution of the order was not inhibited by the
functionality.
    This Anti-Internalization functionality can assist Market Makers in
reducing trading costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting
from the interaction of executable buy and sell trading interest from
the same firm when performing the same market making function.
Minimum Execution Quantity Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 715, entitled ``Types of
Orders'' at 715(q) to remove minimum quantity orders. Today, the
Exchange allows members to enter minimum quantity orders, which is an
order type that is available for partial execution, but each partial
execution must be for a specified number of contracts or greater. If
the balance of the order after one or more partial executions is less
than the minimum, such balance is treated as all-or-none. Like all-or-
none orders, minimum quantity orders are contingency orders that are
not displayed in the Exchange's best bid or offer. However, the
Exchange disseminates to market participants an indication that a
minimum quantity order has been entered. The Exchange has found that
the utilization of minimum quantity orders by its members has been very
limited, and therefore proposes to remove this functionality.\35\
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to remove two references to minimum
quantity orders in other rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
remove references to minimum quantity orders in ISE Supplementary
Material .02 to Rule 713, which notes that minimum quantity orders are
contingency orders that have no priority on the book, and in ISE
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 717, which explains that non-
marketable minimum quantity orders are deemed ``exposed'' one second
following a broadcast notifying the market that such an order to buy or
sell a specified number of contracts at a specified with a specified
minimum quantity has been received in the options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This functionality is currently being utilized to transact
less than 1% of ISE's volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delay of Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of Directed Order
\36\ functionality on ISE. The Exchange proposes to continue to offer
this functionality on the current platform. The Exchange however would
propose

not to launch the Directed Order functionality on ISE at the same time
as proposed herein for the proposals to amend other trading functions.
The Exchange would instead issue an alert which specifies a different
date for this functionality to commence on ISE. This functionality will
remain the same on the new platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ISE currently operates a Directed Order system in which
Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') can send an order to a DMM for
possible price improvement. If a DMM accepts Directed Orders
generally, that DMM must accept all Directed Orders from all EAMs.
Once such a DMM receives a Directed Order, it either (i) must enter
the order into the Exchange's PIM auction and guarantee its
execution at a price better than the ISE best bid or offer (``ISE
BBO'') by at least a penny and equal to or better than the NBBO or
(ii) must release the order into the Exchange's limit order book, in
which case there are certain restrictions on the DMM interacting
with the order. See ISE Rule 811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text in Rule 811 (Directed
Orders) to note that this functionality will not be available as of a
certain date in the second quarter of 2017 to be announced in a notice.
The Exchange will recommence this functionality on ISE within one year
from the date of filing of this rule change to be announced in a
separate notice.
    The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the functionality
for Directed Orders after Q2 2017. The migration will also be on a
symbol by symbol basis, and the Exchange will issue an alert to members
in the form of an Options Trader Alert to provide notification of the
symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates. The Exchange will
introduce Directed Orders on ISE within one year from the date of this
filing, otherwise the Exchange will file a rule proposal with the
Commission to remove these rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\37\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\38\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest for the reasons stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Halts
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 702 concerning Trading
Halts to specifically note that during a halt the Exchange will
maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes is
consistent with the Act because it provides market participants with
clarity as to the manner in which interest will be handled by the
system. During a trading halt, the market may move and create risk to
market participants with respect to resting interest. The Exchange
believes that cancelling existing quotes protects investors and the
public interest by removing potentially stale quotes during the halt
process.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its rules on order handling during
Limit up-Limit Down states and trading halts is consistent with the Act
because it will harmonize the way the Exchange treats orders during a
Limit State or Straddle State in the equity market, or a trading halt
in the option, with how those orders are handled on other Nasdaq
Exchanges. The proposed rule text should provide certainty about how
options orders and trades will be handled during periods of
extraordinary volatility in the underlying security. Specifically,
under the proposal, market participants will be able to continue to
trade options overlying securities that are in a Limit State or
Straddle State, while addressing specific order types that are subject
to added risks during such periods. The Exchange believes that the
rejection of options Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders)
should help to prevent executions that might occur at prices that have
not been reliably formed, which should, in turn, protect, in
particular, retail investors from executions of un-priced orders during
times of significant volatility. Specifically, with respect to Market
Orders, Market Orders exposed at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary
Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901 or exposed for price improvement pursuant
to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii), which are pending in the system, will
continue to be processed. The Exchange believes that it is consistent
with the Act to cancel a Market Order, if at the end of either of these
exposure periods the affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle
State, because of the uncertainty present which may result in
executions that might occur at prices that have not been reliably
formed. The Exchange would process the Market Order, with normal
handling, provided the affected underlying is no longer in a Limit or
Straddle State. The Exchange believes that this approach should, in
turn, protect, in particular, retail investors from executions of un-
priced orders during times of significant volatility. The Exchange
believes that harmonizing these rules will provide a better experience
to members that trade on multiple markets operated by Nasdaq, Inc.
Cancellation of Quotes
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 702 concerning Trading
Halts to specifically note that during a halt the Exchange will
maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes is
consistent with the Act because it provides market participants with
clarity as to the manner in which interest will be handled by the
system. During a trading halt, the market may move and create risk to
market participants with respect to resting interest. The Exchange
believes that cancelling existing quotes protects investors and the
public interest by removing potentially stale quotes during the halt
process.
Limit Up-Limit Down
    The Exchange's proposal to add new ISE Rule 702(d) to replace rule
text currently contained in ISE Rule 703A entitled ``Trading During
Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities'' is consistent
with the Act because the proposed rules provide for protections from
erroneous executions in a highly volatile period. The proposed rule
text in ISE Rule 702(d) is similar to language currently in Phlx Rule
1047(d), which provides for Exchange handling due to extraordinary
market volatility. As noted within this proposal, the Exchange will
adopt opening limitation, Market Order and Stop Order handling
consistent with handling today on Phlx. The Exchange proposes to adopt
rule text to provide for how the Exchange shall treat the opening
rotation.\39\ If an opening process is occurring, it will cease and
then start the opening process from the beginning once the Limit State
or Straddle State is no longer occurring. The Exchange believes that
this treatment at the opening will protect investors and the public
interest by halting trading to prevent unintended executions. Also,
with this proposal, Market Orders pending in the System will continue
to be processed regardless of the Limit or Straddle State. The Exchange
believes that this treatment of Market Orders is consistent with the
Act because these Market Orders are only pending in the System if they
are exposed at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE
Rule 1901 or a complex order exposed for price improvement pursuant to
ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii). If at the end of the exposure period the
affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State, the Market Order
will be cancelled with no trade occurring. If at the end of the
exposure period, the affected underlying is no longer in a Limit or
Straddle State, the Market Order will be handled pursuant to the normal
operation of the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, ISE does not currently elect Stop Orders that are pending
in the System during a Limit or Straddle State. Under the proposal, and
in-line with the Phlx implementation, Stop Orders that are pending in
the System during a

Limit or Straddle State will be elected, if conditions for such
election are met, and, because they become Market Orders, will be
cancelled back to the Member with a reason for such rejection. The
Exchange believes that this is consistent with the Act because it
affords the appropriate protections to an elected Stop Order once it
becomes a Market Order after election. The Exchange believes that this
approach provides the market participant with the intended result.
Auction Handling During a Trading Halt
    The Exchange's proposal to amend various rules to add detail to ISE
rules to account for the impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's
auction mechanisms is consistent with the Act for the reasons which
follow. The Exchange's proposal to amend today's current behavior and
instead terminate the auction and not execute eligible interest when a
trading halt occurs is consistent with the Act because during a trading
halt, the market may move and create risk to market participants with
respect to resting interest. The Exchange believes that terminating the
PIM auction protects investors and the public interest by providing
certainty to participants in regard to how their interest will be
handled. Introducing consistent order handling and memorializing the
manner in which the system will handle orders entered into PIM during a
trading halt will provide transparency for the benefit of members and
investors.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 716, entitled ``Block
Trades'' to memorialize that if a trading halt is initiated after an
order is entered into the Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation
Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism, such auction will also be
automatically terminated without execution is consistent with the Act
because in the event of a trading halt, terminating these auction
mechanisms and not executing eligible interest will provide certainty
to participants in regard to how their interest will be handled.
Memorializing the manner in which the system will handle orders during
a trading halt will provide transparency for the benefit of members and
investors.
Market Order Spread Protection
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 711 to adopt a mandatory
risk protection entitled Market Order Spread Protection for single leg
orders is consistent with the Act because it provides a protection for
Market Orders that may encourage price continuity, which should, in
turn, protect investors and the public interest by reducing executions
occurring at dislocated prices. Further, the Exchange believes that
this rule proposal will mitigate risks to market participants.
Acceptable Trade Range
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 714 to remove the current
Price Level Protection rule and adopt Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range for
single leg orders is consistent with the Act and will 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 by making the Exchange's market more efficient, to the
benefit of the investing public. Further, it should prevent the system
from experiencing dramatic price swings by creating a level of
protection that prevents the market from moving beyond set thresholds.
The proposed rule change will reduce the negative impacts of sudden,
unanticipated volatility in individual options, and serve to preserve
an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner, enhance the
price-discovery process, increase overall market confidence, and
promote fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the NBBO is a fair
representation of then-available prices and accordingly the proposal
helps to avoid executions at prices that are significantly worse than
the NBBO.
    With respect to the posting information, which is described in the
Phlx rule, but not contained in the proposed ISE rule, the Exchange
believes that it is consistent with the Act to cancel unexecuted
interest which is priced through an Acceptable Trade Range. Today, the
Exchange does not have an iterative process wherein the Exchange will
attempt to execute unexecuted balances for a period of time while that
interest is automatically re-priced on the order book. Phlx has this
type of functionality for Acceptable Trade Range, while the Exchange
does not re-price interest on the order book. The Exchange
transparently describes the cancellation of the interest within its
rules.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the current Price Level Protection
Rule in Rule 714(b)(1) to relocate the provision to Rule 714(b)(4) and
remove references to PMM Order Handling is consistent with the Act
because the Exchange will continue to offer this protection for complex
orders. Unlike single leg orders which are subject to trade-through
protections, complex orders do not have similar restrictions and
therefore the Exchange believes that the current Price Level Protection
Rule provides a better protection for complex orders because the
Acceptable Trade Range protection described within this filing utilizes
the NBBO and the Price Level Protection does not rely on the NBBO but
rather limits the number of price levels.
PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the PMMs order handling and
opening obligations is consistent with the Act because PMMs will no
longer have these obligations due to the introduction of Acceptable
Trade Range and opening rotation functionality that is offered today on
NOM and Phlx. Because the PMM will no longer have these obligations,
the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to remove these rules.
Back-Up PMM
    The Exchange's proposal to remove certain responsibilities of
Primary Market Makers with respect to Back-Up Primary Market Maker
assignments is consistent with the Act because the Exchange believes
this function is not necessary. Today, in addition to market making
obligations, the Primary Market Maker has certain order handling and
other obligations as prescribed by Exchange Rules. Specifically, the
obligations of a Primary Market Maker include the initiation of a
trading rotation pursuant to ISE Rule 701, quoting and other
obligations pursuant to ISE Rules 803 and 804, and financial
requirements pursuant to ISE Rule 809. The Exchange is proposing to
amend the obligations of a PMM only with regard to the initiation of a
trading rotation pursuant to ISE Rule 701. The quoting and financial
requirements rules shall remain the same. With the re-platform, a Back-
Up Primary Market Maker is no longer necessary since the order handling
obligations present on ISE today are not going to be present in the new
system. Furthermore, the proposed Opening Process,\40\ obviates the
importance of such a role. The Opening Process further describes
alternative methods to open the market if such quotes are not entered
at the opening by either of these market makers.\41\ The reliance on a
market maker to initiate the opening process is no longer present
within the proposed rule.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See note 3 above.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange does not believe there is an interest
among market participants for the back-up assignment.

Default Settings for Market Maker Risk Protections
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ISE Rule 804(g) to introduce
default curtailment settings for the Market Maker Speed Bump and
Market-Wide Speed Bump is consistent with the Act as it will allow
market makers to use Exchange set default values for these risk
protections. Today, these market makers would have their quotes
rejected if they fail to enter the required curtailment parameters. The
default settings provide an alternative for market makers that have not
entered their curtailment settings. Default settings will be announced
to members who will have the opportunity to avoid the defaults by
entering their own curtailment settings as required under the rule.
Anti-Internalization
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the ISE Supplementary Material at
.03 to Rule 804 to add Anti-Internalization is consistent with the Act
because it is designed to assist market makers in reducing trading
costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting from the
interaction of executable buy and sell trading interest from the same
firm when performing the same market making function. Further, it is
consistent with the Act to not apply this functionality in any auction
or with respect to complex transactions because AIQ is difficult to
apply during auctions, and there is limited benefit in doing so. There
is limited benefit because, generally speaking, auctions do not raise
the same policy concerns for wash sales and ERISA \43\ due to the semi-
random manner in which trades are matched. AIQ is unnecessary with
respect to complex orders due to the highly specialized nature of such
orders and the high level of control that market participants exercise
over complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See note 34 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Quantity Orders
    The Exchange believes that removing minimum quantity orders would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system by simplifying functionality
available on the Exchange and reducing complexity of its order types.
Delay of Implementation
    The Exchange believes that delaying the implementation of the
Directed Order functionality on ISE is consistent with the Act because
the Exchange desires to rollout this functionality at a later date to
allow additional time to rebuild this technology on the new platform.
The Exchange is staging the replatform to provide maximum benefit to
its Members while also ensuring a successful rollout. This delay will
provide the Exchange additional time to implement this functionality,
which is not being amended. Members will be given adequate notice of
the implementation dates. The Exchange will continue to provide
notifications to Members to ensure clarity about the delay of
implementation of this functionality. The Exchange will note the
applicable dates within the rule text.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained above, the
Exchange is re-platforming it's trading system onto the Nasdaq INET
architecture, and is making certain other changes to its trading
functionality in connection with this migration. A majority of the
functionality that is being added with the proposed rule change already
exists on one or more Nasdaq Exchanges. As a result, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impact the intense
competition that exists in the options market. In fact, the Exchange
believes that adopting this functionality on ISE will allow the
Exchange to more effectively compete for order flow with other options
markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 within such longer period 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 such 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-ISE-2017-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-03 and should be
submitted on or before March 20, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03730 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 37431]
[DOCID:fr29jn10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 606-027--California]

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; Notice of Public Meeting on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement

June 22, 2010.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff will conduct a public meeting on the
draft environmental impact statement (Draft EIS) for the Kilarc-Cow
Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 606-027). In addition to
or in lieu of sending written comments on the Draft EIS, you are
invited to attend a public meeting that will be held to receive
comments on the Draft EIS. The time and location of this public meeting
is as follows:

Kilarc-Cow Creek Project Public Meeting

    Date: July 14, 2010.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (p.s.t.).
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel--in Redding.
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Drive, Redding, CA 96002.
    Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The purpose of this meeting is to solicit comments on the Draft EIS
prepared as part of processing the surrender of license application for
the Kilarc-Cow Creek Project. The Draft EIS was issued and publicly
noticed on June 22, 2010, and is available for review on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, under the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number (e.g., P-606) excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Kilarc-Cow Creek Project is located on the Old Cow Creek, South
Cow Creek, and tributaries in Shasta County, California. The project
contains 1.87 acres that are held in trust by the United States under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The licensee of the
project is Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    This meeting is open to the public. At this meeting, State and
Federal resource agency personnel, Indian tribes, non-governmental
organizations, and other interested persons will have the opportunity
to provide oral and/or written comments regarding the Draft EIS. The
meeting will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements
(verbal and written) will become part of the Commission's public record
for the project. This meeting will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.
    The deadline for filing comments on the Draft EIS is August 9,
2010. Comments should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington,
DC 20426. Comments should reference Project No. 606-027 (Kilarc-Cow
Creek Project). Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet
in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link.
    For further information on this project, contact the environmental
coordinator CarLisa Linton-Peters at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15701 Filed 6-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Form

                                                                          NIOSH
                                                                         Submit
                                                                      A-Z Index
                                                                Advanced Search
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom of Form
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
     Workplace Safety & Health Topics
     Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES)
     Facebook

     Twitter

     LinkedIn

     Syndicate

Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES)
ABLES Data Summaries
     Elevated Blood Lead Levels (BLL) among Employed Adults  --  United States, 2016.
Overall, the national prevalence rate of BLLs >=10 μg/dL declined from 26.6 adults per 100,000 employed in 2010 (among 37 states) to 15.8 in 2016 (among 26 reporting states). Historically, in the U.S., most lead exposures among adults have been occupational. Among the 11,695 adults with known exposures at BLL>=10 μg/dL in 2016, 90.3% had occupational exposures. The majority of these adults were employed in four main industry sectors: manufacturing, construction, services, and mining. Review 2016 data on elevated blood lead levels among employed adultsexcel icon.
     Blood Lead Level Data  -  Reported from 1994 through 2012
CDC. Elevated Blood Lead Levels among Employed Adults  --  United States, 1994 - 2012. 2015. MMWR 62(54); 52-75
     Blood Lead Level Data  -  Reported from 2002 through 2005
CDC/NIOSH Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance Program
PDFpdf icon [PDF  -  78 KB]
Available in Excelexcel icon
     Blood Lead Level Data  -  Reported from 1994 through 2001
CDC/NIOSH Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance Program
PDFpdf icon [PDF  -  55 KB]
Available in Excelexcel icon


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 22296]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08667]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance;
Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal
from the County of Jackson Airport Director to change certain portions
of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Rogue
Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, Oregon. The proposal
consists of portions of certain parcels on the northeast and southeast
parts of the airfield.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Emailed comments can be
provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jerry Brienza, Airport Director,
County of 1000 Terminal Loop Parkway, Medford, OR 97504; or Mandi M.
Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 S
216 St., Des Moines, WA 98198<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(206) 231-4140.
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the
Airport Director, County of Jackson, to change a portion of the Rogue
Valley International-Medford Airport from aeronautical use to non-
aeronautical use. The proposal consists of Area 2, on the east side of
the airport (0.8 acres of Parcel 51, 0.62 acres of Parcel 52 and 0.5
acres of Parcel 53) and Area 3, on the west side of the airport (0.65
acres of Parcel 31, 0.34 acres of Parcel 32, 0.75 acres of Parcel 33,
0.9 acres of Parcel 34 and 0.8 acres of Parcel 35).
    The partial parcels do not have airfield access. The proposed
property will be developed for commercial purposes. The FAA concurs
that the parcels are no longer needed for aeronautical purposes. The
proposed use of this property is compatible with other airport
operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenue, published in Federal Register on February
16, 1999.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 21, 2021.
Warren D. Ferrell,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-08667 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 169 (Friday, September 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49589-49590]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19028]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15g-3; [SEC File No. 270-346, OMB Control No. 3235-0392]

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-3--Broker
or dealer disclosure of quotations and other information relating to
the penny stock market (17 CFR 240.15g-3) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15g-3 requires that brokers and dealers disclose to customers
current quotation prices or similar market information in connection
with transactions in penny stocks. The purpose of the rule is to
increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks
generally and specific penny stock transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 178 broker-dealers will
each spend an average of approximately

87.0833333 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus, the total
time burden is approximately 15,501 hours per year.
    Rule 15g-3 contains record retention requirements. Compliance with
the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the
examination staff of the Commission and the self regulatory
organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 30, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19028 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39327]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the following areas among those
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June
25, 2008.

    Clark, Lewis, Lincoln, Marion, Pike, Ralls, and St. Charles
Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.)
    All jurisdictions in the State of Missouri are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-15533 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53999]
[DOCID:fr02se10-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary: Notice of Applications for Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits
Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the week ending August 21, 2010. The
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2005-22228.
    Date Filed: August 17, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 7, 2010.
    Description: Application of Atlas Air, Inc. requesting renewal of
its certificate of public convenience and necessity for blanket route
integration, awarded by Order 2006-1-1.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-21941 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P