[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51646-51648]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0518]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Cumberland River, Hendersonville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a marine event permit for the
Waddle & Reed Inc. Boat in Movie, and establishing a temporary special
local regulation for navigable waters on the Cumberland River from mile
marker (MM) 236.0 to MM 237.5. The special local regulation is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by the Boat in Movie night on August 22,
2020. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from 7:30 p.m.
until 9:30 p.m. on August 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0518 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer First Class Nicholas Jones, Marine Safety
Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because of the hazards associated with the
Boat in Movie night, and the need to address public safety via the
implementation of a special local regulation. It is impracticable to
publish an NPRM because we must establish this special local regulation
by August 22, 2020.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley

(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Boat
in Movie night marine event will be a safety concern, and is
establishing a special local regulation from mile marker (MM) 236.0 to
237.5 on the Cumberland River. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
for the duration of the event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7:30 p.m.
until 9:30 p.m. on August 22, 2020. The special local regulation will
cover all navigable waters between miles 236.0 to 237.5 on the
Cumberland River. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters for the duration of the event. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the regulated zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
This special local regulation restricts transit on a one and a half-
mile segment of the Cumberland River for two hours on one day.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) about this special local regulation so that waterway
users may plan accordingly for this short restriction on transit, and
the rule would allow vessels to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting two
hours that will prohibit entry from mile 236.0 to 237.5 on the
Cumberland River. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L61 in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARDES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T08-0518 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-0518  Special Local Regulation; Cumberland River,
Hendersonville, TN

    (a) Location. The Cumberland River, miles 236.0 to 237.5.
    (b) Periods of enforcement. This temporary special local regulation
will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on August 22, 2020.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
(COTP) or designated personnel. Moreover, persons or vessels desiring
to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the
COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from the special local
regulation requirements as well as enter the restricted area must
transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local
regulation, as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement.

    Dated: August 14, 2020.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2020-18316 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29583-29589]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13505]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83464; File No. SR-ISE-2018-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Box and
Butterfly Spread Protections

June 19, 2018.
    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 June 7, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new order type protections,
Butterfly and Box Spread protections, for Complex Order \3\ strategy
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A complex order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, for the same account, in a ratio that is
equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular
investment strategy. See ISE Rule 722(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Adopt Complex Order protections for
Butterfly and Box Spread protections for Complex Order strategies; and
(ii) reorganize and amend the existing Complex Order protections
currently contained within .07 of Supplementary Material to Rule 722
and Rule 714. These amendments will be described in greater detail
below. This rule change is similar to protections, which exist today on
Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rule change is similar to Phlx Rule 1098(i) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopt Butterfly and Box Spread Protections
    Today, ISE members may submit Butterfly and Box spreads into the
System. ISE proposes to define a Butterfly spread as a three legged
Complex Order with certain characteristics.\5\ The Exchange is
proposing to reject Butterfly spreads which are outside of certain
parameters to avoid potential executions at prices that exceed the
minimum and maximum possible intrinsic value of the spread by a
specified amount. Additionally, ISE proposes to define a Box spread as
a four legged Complex Order with certain characteristics.\6\ The
Exchange is proposing to reject Box spreads which are outside of
certain parameters to avoid potential executions at prices that exceed
the minimum and maximum possible intrinsic value of the spread by a
specified amount. Today, the Exchange offers similar order protection
features for Complex Orders such as Vertical and Calendar Spread
Protections \7\ to avoid erroneous trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This strategy utilizes a combination of either all calls or
all puts of the same expiration date in the same underlying to limit
risk.
    \6\ This strategy utilizes a combination of put/call pairs of
options with the same expiration date in the same underlying to
limit risk.
    \7\ See Supplementary Material .07(c) to ISE Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Butterfly Spread Protection
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a Butterfly Spread
Protection. A Butterfly Spread is a three legged Complex Order with the
following: (1) Two legs to buy (sell) the same number of calls (puts);
(2) one leg to sell (buy) twice the number of calls (puts) with a
strike price at mid-point of the two legs to buy (sell); (3) all legs
have the same expiration; and (4) each leg strike price is equidistant
from the next sequential strike price. With this protection, a
Butterfly Spread Limit Order that is priced higher than the Maximum
Value (defined below) or lower than the Minimum Value (defined below)
will be rejected. A Butterfly Spread Market Order (or Butterfly Spread
Limit Order entered with a net price inside the Butterfly Spread
Protection Range) to Buy (Sell) will be restricted from executing by
legging into the single leg market with a net price higher (lower) than
the Maximum (Minimum) Value. The Butterfly Spread Protection Range is
the absolute difference between the Minimum Value and the Maximum
Value.
    ISE's proposal continues to protect Butterfly Spreads from legging
into the single leg market(s), similar to Phlx Rule 1098(i), at a price
higher than the Maximum Value for buy orders and lower than the Minimum
Value for sell orders. ISE's proposal differs from Phlx in that ISE
allows legging below the Minimum Value for buys and above the Maximum
Value for sells at a price made available by the synthetic (cIBBO)
market outside of the Butterfly Spread Protection Range.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Allowing sell orders to trade by legging into the simple
market at prices above the Maximum Value (buy orders below the
Minimum Value) offers an opportunity for sellers/buyers to receive a
premium beyond the potential intrinsic value of the spread without
creating risk for the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these limitations, which exist today for
ISE Vertical and Calendar Spreads,\9\ are consistent with the Act
because the limits permit buying below the minimum and selling above
the maximum thereby allowing buyers and sellers to achieve better
prices without taking on additional risk. The intrinsic value for the
Butterfly Spread that could be achieved when closing the position would
not be negatively impacted in

this case because the limitation permits price improvement. The
Exchange notes, however, that in certain situations, market
participants willingly want to execute certain trading strategies even
if such trades occur outside their intrinsic value or at seemingly
erroneous prices (e.g., negative price).\10\ The Exchange believes it
is appropriate to provide market participants flexibility to allow them
to execute these trading strategies and therefore to adopt a buffer to
permit the execution of such trading strategies. The Exchange believes
it is reasonable to adopt a buffer to give the Exchange the ability to
adjust the pre-set value uniformly across all options classes in the
event the Exchange believes a different pre-set value is more
appropriate. Finally, the Exchange notes that it provides these
protections for the benefit of, and in consultation with, its Members.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will help the Exchange
to maintain a fair and orderly market, and provide a valuable service
to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ A small incremental allowance outside of the Minimum/
Maximum Value allows for a small premium to offset commissions
associated with trading and may incentivize participants to take the
other side of spreads trading at or slightly outside of the
intrinsic value. For the participant looking to close out their
position, it may be financially beneficial to pay a small premium
and close out the position rather than carry such position to
expiration and take delivery. The purpose of this rule change is not
to impede current order handling but to ensure execution prices are
within a reasonable range of minimum and maximum values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Initial Maximum Value shall be the distance between the strike
price of the leg with the mid-point strike price and either of the
outer leg strike prices. The Maximum Value Buffer is the lesser of a
configurable absolute dollar value or percentage of the Initial Maximum
Value set by the Exchange and announced via a notice to members. The
Exchange intends to set the Maximum Value Buffer at zero initially. The
Maximum Value is calculated by adding the Initial Maximum Value and
Maximum Value Buffer.
    The Initial Minimum Value shall be zero. The Minimum Value Buffer
is a configurable absolute dollar value set by the Exchange and
announced via a notice to members. The Exchange intends to set the
Minimum Value Buffer at zero initially. The Exchange would monitor the
zero value, including feedback from market participants, in determining
whether the value is set at the appropriate level. The decision to
change the buffer could stem from participant concern for their ability
to close out positions. The Minimum Value is calculated by subtracting
the Minimum Value Buffer from the Initial Minimum Value of zero. There
are circumstances where the Minimum Value may be less than zero.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, market participants who desire to trade out of
positions at intrinsic value may not find a contra-side willing to
trade without a premium. A small incremental allowance outside of
the minimum/maximum value allows for a small premium to offset
commissions associated with trading and may incentivize participants
to take the other side of spreads trading at intrinsic value. For
the participant looking to close out their position, it may be
financially beneficial to pay a small premium and close out the
position rather than carry such position to expiration and take
delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Butterfly Spread Protection would apply throughout the trading
day, including pre-market, during the Opening Process and during a
trading halt. Unlike Phlx, but similar to ISE Vertical and Calendar
spreads,\12\ these protections will not apply to Complex Orders being
auctioned in the Facilitation, Solicitation, Price Improvement
mechanism and associated auction responses. Also, today, the Vertical
and Calendar spreads do not apply to Customer Cross Orders.\13\ The
Exchange is adding Customer Cross Orders to the list of excluded order
types that are not protected by the Vertical, Calendar, Box or
Butterfly spread protections. Complex orders executed in these
mechanisms are two-sided orders where the contra-side order is willing
to trade with the agency order at an agreed upon price thus removing
the risk that the order was executed erroneously outside its intrinsic
value. Similarly, a Customer Cross Order is a two-sided order where the
contra-side order is willing to trade with the agency order at an
agreed upon price. The Exchange believes that because paired orders are
negotiated in advance by both parties it is unlikely that the parties
would agree to transact at prices that would necessitate the
protections proposed within the Butterfly Spread Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c).
    \13\ A Customer Cross Order is comprised of a Priority Customer
Order to buy and a Priority Customer Order to sell at the same price
and for the same quantity. See ISE Rule 715(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is an example of the application of this protection.
Example 1
    Assume the following Complex Order legs for a Butterfly Spread:

1. Buy 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Call (33.70 x 34.60)
2. Sell 2 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Calls (27.00 x 27.90)
3. Buy 1 NDX 6980 Jan 26 Call (28.40 x 29.50)
The derived net ISE Complex Order market (``cIBBO'') is 6.30 x 10.10
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The cIBBO is calculated by deriving the synthetic bid and
offer available in the simple market with the ratio of each option
leg of the spread considered. The 6.30 number is arrived at by
multiplying (1 * 33.70) then subtracting (2 * 27.90) and adding (1 *
28.40). The 10.10 number is derived by multiplying (1 * 34.60) then
subtracting (2 * 27.00) and adding (1 * 29.50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assume both the Maximum Value Buffer and Minimum Value Buffer are 0.00
Minimum Value = 0.00
     Initial Minimum Value: 0.00
     Minimum Value Buffer: 0.00
     Minimum Value: 0.00-0.00 = 0.00
Maximum Value = 10
     Initial Maximum Value: 6970 (middle leg strike price)-6960
(outer leg strike price) = 10.00

     Maximum Value Buffer: 0.00
     Maximum Value: 10.00 (Initial Maximum Value) + 0.00
(Maximum Value Buffer) = 10.00

    An incoming order to buy the spread defined above for 10.10 will be
rejected because the purchase price of 10.10 is greater than the
Maximum Value of 10.00.
Example 2
    Assume the following Complex Order legs for a Butterfly Spread:

1. Buy 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Call (33.70 x 34.60)
2. Sell 2 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Calls (27.00 x 27.90)
3. Buy 1 NDX 6980 Jan 26 Call (28.40 x 29.45)
The derived net ISE Complex Order market (``cIBBO'') is 6.30 x 10.05
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The cIBBO is calculated by deriving the synthetic bid and
offer available in the simple market with the ratio of each option
leg of the spread considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assume both the Maximum Value Buffer and Minimum Value Buffer are 0.05
Minimum Value = -0.05
     Initial Minimum Value: 0.00
     Minimum Value Buffer: 0.05
     Minimum Value: 0.00-0.05 = -0.05
Maximum Value = 10.05
     Initial Maximum Value: 6970 (middle leg strike price)-6960
(outer leg strike price) = 10.00
     Maximum Value Buffer: 0.05
     Maximum Value: 10.00 (Initial Maximum Value) + 0.05
(Maximum Value Buffer) = 10.05

    An incoming order to buy the spread defined above for 10.05 will be
accepted and executed against the simple market because the purchase
price of 10.05 is equal to the Maximum Value 10.05.

Phlx has a similar protection in place today.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 83033 (April
11, 2018), 83 FR 16907 (April 17, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Box Spread Protection
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a Box Spread
Protection. A Box Spread is a four legged Complex Order with the
following: (1) One pair of legs with the same strike price with one leg
to buy a call (put) and one leg to sell a put (call); (2) a second pair
of legs with a different strike price from the pair described in (1)
with one leg to sell a call (put) and one leg to buy a put (call); (3)
all legs have the same expiration; and (4) all legs have equal volume.
With this protection, a Box Spread Limit Order that is priced higher
than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value will be
rejected. A Box Spread Market Order (or Box Spread Limit Order entered
with a net price inside the Box Spread Protection Range) to Buy (Sell)
will be restricted from executing by legging into the single leg market
with a net price higher (lower) than the Maximum (Minimum) Value. The
Box Spread Protection Range is the absolute difference between the
Minimum Value and the Maximum Value.
    ISE's proposal continues to protect Box Spreads from legging into
the single leg market(s), similar to Phlx Rule 1098(j), at a price
higher than the Maximum Value for buy orders and lower than the Minimum
Value for sell orders. ISE's proposal differs from Phlx in that ISE
allows legging below the Minimum Value for buys and above the Maximum
Value for sells at a price made available by the synthetic (cIBBO)
market outside of the Box Spread Protection Range.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Allowing sell orders to trade by legging into the simple
market at prices above the Maximum Value (buy orders below the
Minimum Value) offers an opportunity for sellers/buyers to receive a
premium beyond the potential intrinsic value of the spread without
creating risk for the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these limitations, which exist today for
ISE Vertical and Calendar Spreads,\18\ are consistent with the Act
because the limits permit buying below the minimum and selling above
the maximum thereby allowing buyers and sellers to achieve better
prices without taking on additional risk. The intrinsic value for the
Box Spread that could be achieved when closing the position would not
be negatively impacted in this case because the limitation permits
price improvement as noted above for Butterfly Spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Supplementary Material .07(c) to ISE Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Initial Maximum Value shall be the distance between the strike
prices of each pair of leg strike prices. The Maximum Value Buffer is
the lesser of a configurable absolute dollar value or percentage of the
Initial Maximum Value set by the Exchange and announced via a notice to
members. The Exchange intends to set the Maximum Value Buffer at zero
initially. The Maximum Value is calculated by adding the Initial
Maximum Value and Maximum Value Buffer.
    The Initial Minimum Value shall be zero. The Minimum Value Buffer
is a configurable absolute dollar value set by the Exchange and
announced via a notice to members. The Exchange intends to set the
Minimum Value Buffer at zero initially. The Minimum Value is calculated
by subtracting the Minimum Value Buffer from the Initial Minimum Value
of zero.
    The Box Spread Protection would apply throughout the trading day,
including pre-market, during the Opening Process and during a trading
halt. The protections will not apply to Complex Orders in the
Facilitation, Solicitation, Price Improvement mechanism and associated
auction responses. The Box Spread Protection will also not apply to
Customer Cross Orders. Unlike Phlx, but similar to ISE Vertical and
Calendar spreads,\19\ these protections will not apply to Complex
Orders being auctioned in the Facilitation, Solicitation, Price
Improvement mechanism and associated auction responses. Also, today,
the Vertical and Calendar spreads do not apply to Customer Cross
Orders. The Exchange is adding Customer Cross Orders to the list of
excluded order types that are not protected by the Vertical, Calendar,
Box or Butterfly spread protections. Complex orders executed in these
mechanisms are two-sided orders where the contra-side order is willing
to trade with the agency order at an agreed upon price thus removing
the risk that the order was executed erroneously outside its intrinsic
value. Similarly, a Customer Cross Order is a two-sided order where the
contra-side order is willing to trade with the agency order at an
agreed upon price. The Exchange believes that because paired orders are
negotiated in advance by both parties it is unlikely that the parties
would agree to transact at prices that would necessitate the
protections proposed within the Box Spread Protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1
    Assume the following Complex Order pairs for a Box Spread:

1. Pair A
    a. Buy 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Call (30.80 x 34.05)
    b. Sell 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Put (33.50 x 36.00)
2. Pair B
    a. Sell 1 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Call (27.50 x 29.00)
    b. Buy 1 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Put (36.40 x 37.05)
The derived net ISE Complex Order market (``cIBBO'') is 2.20 x 10.10
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The cIBBO is calculated by deriving the synthetic bid and
offer available in the simple market with the ratio of each option
leg of the spread considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assume both Maximum Value Buffer and Minimum Value Buffer are 0.00
Minimum Value = 0.00
     Initial Minimum Value: 0.00
     Minimum Value Buffer: 0.00
     Minimum Value: 0.00-0.00 = 0.00
Maximum Value = 10.00
     Initial Maximum Value: 6970 (Pair A strike price)-6960
(Pair B strike price) = 10.00
     Maximum Value Buffer: 0.00
     Maximum Value: 10.00 (Initial Maximum Value) + 0.00
(Maximum Value Buffer) = 10.00

    An incoming order to buy the spread defined above for 10.10 will be
rejected because the purchase price of 10.10 is greater than the
Maximum Value of 10.00.
Example 2
    Assume the following Complex Order pairs for a Box Spread:

1. Pair A
    a. Buy 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Call (30.80 x 34.05)
    b. Sell 1 NDX 6960 Jan 26 Put (33.50 x 36.50)
2. Pair B
    a. Sell 1 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Call (27.50 x 30.75)
    b. Buy 1 NDX 6970 Jan 26 Put (36.40 x 37.05)
The derived net ISE Complex Order market (``cIBBO'') is -0.05 x 10.10
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The cIBBO is calculated by deriving the synthetic bid and
offer available in the simple market with the ratio of each option
leg of the spread considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assume both Maximum Value Buffer and Minimum Value Buffer are 0.05
Minimum Value = -0.05
     Initial Minimum Value: 0.00
     Minimum Value Buffer: 0.05
     Minimum Value: 0.00-0.05 = -0.05
Maximum Value = 10.05
     Initial Maximum Value: 6970 (Pair

A strike price)-6960 (Pair B strike price) = 10.00
     Maximum Value Buffer: 0.05
     Maximum Value: 10.00 (Initial Maximum Value) + 0.05
(Maximum Value Buffer) = 10.05

    An incoming order to sell the spread defined above for -0.05 will
be accepted and executed against the simple market because the purchase
price of -0.05 is equal than the Minimum Value of -0.05. Phlx has a
similar protection in place today.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 4 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reorganize and Amend Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 722
    The Exchange proposes to reorganize and amend Supplementary
Material .07 to Rule 722 which is entitled ``Price limits for complex
order and quotes.'' The Exchange proposes to rename .07 as ``Complex
Order Protections.'' The Exchange proposes to list all available
Complex Order protections on ISE within Supplementary Material .07 to
Rule 722.
Universal Changes
    The Exchange proposes to reorder the rule and title subsection
``a'' as ``Price limits for Complex Orders and quotes.'' The Exchange
is proposing to capitalize defined terms throughout this section for
consistency. The Exchange removed cross-references that are no longer
necessary with the reorganization. The Exchange proposes to re-letter
and renumber this section to accommodate all the price protections. The
Exchange also proposes adding titles throughout .07 to add more context
to the rules. Proposed Supplementary Material to Rule 722 at .07(b)
shall be titled, ``Strategy Protections.'' Proposed Supplementary
Material to Rule 722 at .07(c) shall be titled, ``Other Price
Protections which apply to Complex Orders.''
Price Limits
    With respect to the price limits specified in proposed Rule 722 at
Supplementary Material .07(a)(1) the Exchange proposes a substantive
amendment to revise the second sentence which currently provides,
``Notwithstanding, the System will not permit any leg of a complex
order to trade through the NBBO for the series by a configurable amount
calculated as the lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed $0.10,
and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as determined by
the Exchange on a class or series basis.'' The Exchange originally
filed this rule to permit ISE to configure settings for this protection
on a class or series basis. The Exchange proposes to amend the ability
to configure settings. Similar to the proposed Butterfly and Box Spread
protections, the Exchange proposes to apply the settings uniformly
across all classes.
Strategy Protections
    The Exchange proposes introducing ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary
Material .07(b) with the following text, ``The following protections
will apply throughout the trading day, including pre-market, during the
Opening Process and during a trading halt.'' Today, the Vertical and
Calendar Spread Protections apply throughout the trading day, including
pre-market, during the Opening Process and during a trading halt. The
Exchange provides for no limitations in the Vertical and Calendar
Spread Protections with respect to any limitations during specific
trading sessions. The Exchange also does not intend for such
limitations to apply for Box and Butterfly Spread Protections. The
Exchange believes that adding this affirmative language will simply
serve to remove any confusion on whether the protections do not apply
during a specific trading session.
    The Exchange also proposes to add another sentence to the
introduction of new section (b) which provides ``The protections will
not apply to Complex Orders being auctioned and auction responses in
the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, and Price
Improvement Mechanism and will not apply to Customer Cross Orders.''
Today, the protections for Vertical Spread Protection and Calendar
Spread Protections do not apply to Complex Orders being auctioned and
auction responses in the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, and Price Improvement Mechanism and Customer Cross
Orders.\23\ The Exchange is proposing these same limitations for Box
and Butterfly Spreads. Complex orders executed in these mechanisms are
two-sided orders where the contra-side order is willing to trade with
the agency order at an agreed upon price thus removing the risk that
the order was executed erroneously outside its intrinsic value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The current rule text does not include Customer Cross
Orders, however, today, the Vertical and Calendar spread protections
do not apply to Customer Cross Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vertical Spread Protections
    The Exchange proposes amending ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary
Material .07(b)(1), similar to the Box and Butterfly Spread
protections, to begin the section with the same conforming language
indicating which strategy the Vertical Spread Protection applies to and
also relocating the definition of a Vertical Spread to the initial
paragraph. The Exchange is amending proposed ISE Rule 722 at
Supplementary Material .07(b)(1)(A) to relocate the language in current
Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(i) \24\ and .07(c)(5) \25\
into the actual paragraph rather than referring back to the
paragraph.\26\ The Exchange proposes the following rule text, ``The
Exchange will set a common pre-set value not to exceed $1.00 to be
applied uniformly across all classes. The Exchange may amend the pre-
set value uniformly across all classes'' at proposed ISE Rule 722 at
Supplementary Material .07(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(i) provides,
``For purposes of the price protections set forth in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(3), the Exchange will set a common pre-set value not
to exceed $1.00 to be applied uniformly across all classes.''
    \25\ Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(5) provides ``The
Exchange may change the pre-set values established in paragraph
(c)(4) in accordance with the parameters set forth therein from time
to time uniformly across all classes.''
    \26\ The words, ``For purposes of the price protections set
forth in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3)'' and ``established in
paragraph (c)(4) in accordance with the parameters set forth therein
from time to time'' are not being carried into the rule text as they
are no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that proposed ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary
Material .07(b)(1)(B) already has a sentence which states, ``The pre-
set value is the lesser of an absolute amount and a percentage of the
difference between the strike prices.'' Instead of also relocating ISE
Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(ii) and (c)(5) into the
actual paragraph, the Exchange proposes to remove the current sentence,
``The pre-set value is the lesser of an absolute amount and a
percentage of the difference between the strike prices'' and instead
combine ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(ii) \27\ and
(c)(5).\28\ The Exchange proposes to state ``The pre-set value used by
the vertical spread check will be the lesser of (1) an absolute amount
not to exceed $1.00 and (2) a percentage of the difference between the
strike prices not to exceed 10% to be applied uniformly across all
classes. The Exchange may amend the pre-set value uniformly across all
classes.'' The Exchange

believes that this proposed rule text more efficiently explains the
relevant provisions and removes unnecessary text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(ii)
provides ``For purposes of the price protections set forth in
paragraph (c)(2), the Exchange will set common pre-set values of (1)
an amount not to exceed $1.00 and (2) a percentage of the difference
between strike prices not to exceed 10% to be applied uniformly
across all classes.''
    \28\ ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(5) provides,
``The Exchange may change the pre-set values established in
paragraph (c)(4) in accordance with the parameters set forth therein
from time to time uniformly across all classes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Spread Protections
    The Exchange proposes amending ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary
Material .07(b)(2), similar to the Box and Butterfly Spread
protections, to begin the section with the same conforming language
indicating which strategy the Calendar Spread Protection applies to and
also relocating the definition of a Calendar Spread to the initial
paragraph. The Exchange is also relocating language in current Rule 722
at Supplementary Material .07(c)(4)(i) into the actual paragraph rather
than referring back to the paragraph.\29\ The Exchange also proposes to
relocate current Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(5) into
proposed ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(b)(2) and amending
the language to conform to the text in the remainder of the rule.\30\
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the remainder of the rule text
currently in Supplementary Material to Rule 722 at .07(c)(4)(i) and
(ii) and .07(c)(5) because the language has been relocated within the
proposed text as described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The words, ``For purposes of the price protections set
forth in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3)'' are not being carried into
the rule text as they are no longer necessary.
    \30\ Currently, the rule text provides ``The Exchange may change
the pre-set values established in paragraph (c)(4) in accordance
with the parameters set forth therein from time to time uniformly
across all classes.'' The Exchange proposes to state ``The Exchange
may amend the pre-set value uniformly across all classes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Price Protections
    The Exchange proposes to add to ISE Rule 722 new Supplementary
Material .07(c) entitled ``Other Price Protections which apply to
Complex Orders'' and relocate Limit Order Price Protection to
.07(c)(1).\31\ The Exchange proposes to relocate Size Limitation to ISE
Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(2).\32\ Finally, the Exchange
proposes to relocate Price Level Protection from Rule 714(b)(4) to Rule
722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(3). The Exchange proposes to
remove the first sentence which provides, ``This protection shall apply
to Complex Orders'' because this rule is not within a Complex Order
rule currently and will not need that indication once the rule text is
relocated to Rule 722. The Exchange also proposes to amend the last
sentence of that rule which currently provides, ``The number of price
levels for the component leg, which may be between one (1) and ten
(10), is determined by the Exchange from time-to-time on a class-by-
class basis.'' The Exchange believes indicating between one and ten
could be misleading because the setting could be numbers 1 and 10 so
``from one (1) to ten (10)'' is being proposed to make that more clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Limit Order Price Protection is currently at ISE Rule 722
at Supplementary Material .07(d).
    \32\ Size Limitation is currently at ISE Rule 722 at
Supplementary Material .07(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 714
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 714(b) to make clear
that the protections in that rule apply to single leg orders. The
Exchange is placing protections for Complex Orders into Rule 722 and
relocating the Price Level Protection rule \33\ related to Complex
Orders. The additional clarifying language to single leg and cross-
reference to Supplementary Material .07 to ISE Rule 722 should make
clear to Members where the various price protections are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As noted above the Price Level Protection rule is being
relocated to ISE Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\34\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\35\ 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, by offering protections for certain Complex Orders which
restrict executions that exceed the intrinsic value of the spread by a
specified (or configurable) amount. Further, the Exchange believes that
its proposal will mitigate risks to market participants. Specifically,
ISE believes that the change, which is responsive to member input, will
facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market by providing its Members with additional
functionality that will assist them with managing their risk by
checking each Complex Order that is either a Butterfly or Box spread
against certain parameters described within the filing before accepting
the Complex Orders into the order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the parameters described herein,
including parameters which will be configured by the Exchange, will
protect members from executing orders too far outside the Minimum Value
and Maximum Value which considers the intrinsic value of the strategy,
thereby promoting fair and orderly markets and the protection of
investors. The Exchange intends to offer a buffer allowance from the
minimum/maximum values permitted for the execution of these strategy
orders to allow market participants flexibility to manage their
business and accommodate executions outside of this range. The Exchange
would monitor the zero value, including feedback from market
participants, in determining whether the value is set at the
appropriate level. The decision to change the buffer could stem from
participants' concern for their ability to close out positions. There
are circumstances where the Minimum Value may be less than zero. For
example, market participants who desire to trade out of positions at
intrinsic value may not find a contra-side willing to trade without a
premium. A small incremental allowance outside of the minimum/maximum
value allows for a small premium to offset commissions associated with
trading and may incentivize participants to take the other side of
spreads trading at intrinsic value. For the participant looking to
close out their position, it may be financially beneficial to pay a
small premium and close out the position rather than carry such
position to expiration and take delivery. The purpose of this rule
change is not to impede current order handling but to ensure execution
prices are within a reasonable range of minimum and maximum values.
    These protections are very similar to protections on Phlx.\36\
ISE's proposal continues to protect Butterfly and Box Spreads from
legging into the single leg market(s), similar to Phlx Rule 1098(i) and
(j), at a price higher than the Maximum Value for buy orders and lower
than the Minimum Value for sell orders. Further, ISE's proposal differs
from Phlx in that ISE allows legging below the Minimum Value for buys
and above the Maximum Value for sells at a price made available by the
synthetic (cIBBO) market outside of the Butterfly and Box Spread
Ranges, The Exchange believes that these limitations, which exist today
for ISE Vertical and Calendar Spreads,\37\ are consistent with the Act
because the limits permit buying below the minimum and selling above
the maximum thereby allowing buyers and sellers to achieve better
prices without

taking on additional risk.\38\ The intrinsic value for the Box Spread
and the Butterfly Spread that could be achieved when closing the
position would not be negatively impacted in this case because the
limitation permits price improvement as noted above for Box Spreads and
Butterfly Spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Phlx Rule 1098(i) and (j).
    \37\ See Supplementary Material .07(c) to ISE Rule 722.
    \38\ Allowing sell orders to trade by legging into the simple
market at prices above the Maximum Value (buy orders below the
Minimum Value) offers an opportunity for sellers/buyers to receive a
premium beyond the potential intrinsic value of the spread without
creating risk for the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude the Butterfly and Box Spread
Protections from Complex Orders being auctioned and auction responses
in the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, and Price
Improvement Mechanism is consistent with the Act because it conforms to
the behavior of other protections on ISE protection including the
protections for Vertical Spread and Calendar Spreads. Complex Orders
executed in these mechanisms are two-sided orders where the contra-side
order is willing to trade with the agency order at an agreed upon price
thus removing the risk that the order was executed erroneously outside
its intrinsic value. The Box and Butterfly Spread Protection will also
not apply to Customer Cross Orders. Unlike Phlx, but similar to ISE
Vertical and Calendar spreads,\39\ these protections will not apply to
Complex Orders being auctioned in the Facilitation, Solicitation, Price
Improvement mechanism and associated auction responses. Also, today,
the Vertical and Calendar spreads do not apply to Customer Cross
Orders. The Exchange is adding Customer Cross Orders to the list of
excluded order types that are not protected by the Vertical, Calendar,
Box or Butterfly Spread Protections. Complex orders executed in these
mechanisms are two-sided orders where the contra-side order is willing
to trade with the agency order at an agreed upon price thus removing
the risk that the order was executed erroneously outside its intrinsic
value. Similarly, a Customer Cross Order is a two-sided order where the
contra-side order is willing to trade with the agency order at an
agreed upon price. The Exchange believes that because paired orders are
negotiated in advance by both parties it is unlikely that the parties
would agree to transact at prices that would necessitate the
protections proposed within the Box and Butterfly Spread Protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Supplementary
Material .07 to ISE Rule 722 further clarify the existing rules and
conform the structure of the rules to the proposed Butterfly and Box
Spread protections. The Exchange believes that reorganizing
Supplementary Material .07 to ISE Rule 722 by adding titles,
capitalizing defined terms, reorganizing the letters and numbers and
consolidating text will protect investors and the public interest by
adding greater transparency to the rules. The Exchange also notes that
it is adding clarifying language to the rule text and relocating the
Price Level Protection from Rule 714, which concerns single leg
protections to Rule 722 at Supplementary Material .07, which concerns
Complex Order protections. The Exchange believes that amending proposed
Supplementary Material .07(a)(1) to ISE Rule 722 to apply the setting
\40\ uniformly across all markets rather than on a class or series
basis will align this protection to the manner in which all other
protections are applied for Complex Orders. The Exchange believes that
uniformly applying the setting is consistent with the Act because it
will apply the protection in the same manner regardless of class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Proposed Supplementary Material .07(a)(1) to ISE Rule 722
provides that the System will not permit any leg of a complex order
to trade through the NBBO for the series by a configurable amount
calculated as the lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed
$0.10, and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as
determined by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Specifically, the proposal does
not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because it will apply
to all Complex Orders, which are either Butterfly or Box spreads
entered by any ISE Member. Further, the proposal will not impose an
undue burden on inter-market competition, rather the proposal will
assist the Exchange in remaining competitive in light of protections
offered by other options exchanges.\41\ The Exchange competes with many
other options exchanges, which offer Complex Orders. In this highly
competitive market, market participants can easily and readily direct
order flow to competing venues. The Exchange believes that not applying
the Box and Butterfly Spread Protections to Customer Cross Orders, in
addition to Complex Orders being auctioned in the Facilitation,
Solicitation, Price Improvement mechanism and associated auction
responses, does not impose any significant burden on competition
because it will not be applied to any of these orders for any market
participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Phlx Rule 1098(i) and (j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \42\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\43\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \44\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \45\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\46\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. In its filing with the
Commission, the Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately
upon filing so that the Exchange may immediately offer the Box and
Butterfly Spread protections, which are offered on Phlx, and remain
competitive with other markets. The Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the Box and Butterfly Spread
protections will help market participant mitigate risk by preventing
the execution of Butterfly and Box Spreads at prices that are outside
of specified minimum and maximum values. The Commission notes that the
Box and Butterfly Spread

protections are substantially similar to protections offered on Phlx.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change operative
upon filing.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \46\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \47\ For purpose only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \48\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-55 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-2018-55. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-55, and should be submitted on
or before July 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13505 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24418-24420]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91736; File No. SR-DTC-2021-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Update the DTC Corporate Actions Distributions Service Guide

April 30, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 20, 2021, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the clearing agency. DTC filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of changes to the rules of DTC
(``Rules''), as described in greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
dtc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change would update the DTC Corporate Actions
Distributions Service Guide (``Distributions Guide'') to (i) direct
Participants to use DTC's ClaimConnect\TM\ service instead of DTC's
Adjustment Payment Order (``APO'') service to make manual, Participant-
to-Participant, cash adjustment claims to principle and interest
(``P&I'') payments on stock loan and repurchase agreement (``repo'')
positions (hereinafter, ``manual adjustments''), and (ii) correct a
misspelled word in the Distributions Guide.
    Currently, the APO service is used, among other things, to make
manual adjustments. A manual adjustment is one that is initiated by one
of the parties (i.e., a Participant) to a stock loan or repo against
the other party (i.e., another Participant), as compared to an
automated adjustment made directly by DTC. A manual adjustment can be
necessary where, for example, there is a transaction discrepancy with
the stock loan or repo, or an agreement between the parties provides
for an adjustment unknown to DTC. The parties can settle the adjustment
away from DTC or one of the parties can submit a manual adjustment via
the APO service.
    Unfortunately, manual processing of adjustments via the APO service
is subject to a number of shortcomings. For example, the adjustments
are not subject to DTC's risk controls,\6\ which can unexpectedly
subject the receiving party to the value of the adjustment; \7\ they
lack a unique identifier, which can make reconciling claims difficult;
there is no automated notification process, so Participants need to
actively monitor for manual adjustments; there is no dashboard where
Participants can see all of their adjustments, nor is there reporting
or search capabilities on adjustments; only one party to the stock loan
or repo can submit a manual adjustment at a time; and there is not a
validation or matching process, which means the parties often need to
submit multiple adjustments between each other before reaching final
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DTC's risk management systems are designed to mitigate
credit and market risk by monitoring, in real time, the projected
settlement activity of Participants, including intraday application
of the Collateral Monitor and Net Debit Cap. These two controls work
together to protect the DTC settlement system in the event of a
Participant default. The Collateral Monitor requires net debit
settlement obligations, as they accrue intraday, to be fully
collateralized. Meanwhile, the Net Debit Cap limits the amount of
any Participant's net debit settlement obligation to the amount that
can be satisfied with DTC liquidity resources (i.e., the
Participants Fund and the committed line of credit from a consortium
of lenders).
    \7\ Although manual adjustments are not subject to DTC's risk
controls, the potential debit or credit value that a party could be
unexpectedly subject to is limited to only the value of the
adjustment, which is relatively small compared to Participants' end-
of-day net settlement amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these shortcomings and others, DTC proposes to no longer
allow Participants to use the APO service to make manual adjustments.
Instead, Participants would be directed to use ClaimConnect in order to
continue to make manual adjustments through DTC.
    ClaimConnect was established in 2020 \8\ as an optional DTC service
that enables Participants to bilaterally match and settle cash claim
transactions through DTC.\9\ More specifically,

ClaimConnect is a validation and matching engine that continually
monitors claims throughout their lifecycle in order to settle and close
claims through DTC's settlement process.\10\ Claims can be matched
manually (i.e., Affirmed) by ClaimConnect users or automatically (i.e.,
Automatched) by the ClaimConnect service when it matches two like
claims based on the alignment of certain data elements. Once matched,
claims are settled through systematic Securities Payment Orders
(``SPOs'') generated and submitted by ClaimConnect at set times,
intraday, on a settlement date.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90481 (November 23,
2020), 85 FR 76640 (November 30, 2020) (SR-DTC-2020-012).
    \9\ See ClaimConnect Service Guide available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/ClaimConnect.pdf. With respect to ClaimConnect, a cash claim or cash
claim transaction is a cash entitlement (i.e., a request for cash)
from one Participant to another Participant. Typically, cash claims
arise as a result of trading exceptions from a Corporate Action
event, where a cash entitlement needs to be delivered from one
holder to another. Trading exceptions include, but are not limited
to, trades outside of the market's agreed upon settlement cycle,
lack of due bill fail tracking, stock loan or repo transaction
discrepancy, or tax treaty differences.
    \10\ See ClaimConnect Service Guide, supra note 9.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There would be several benefits to using ClaimConnect, in lieu of
the APO service, to make manual adjustments at DTC. For example,
adjustment claims in ClaimConnect would be subject to DTC's risk
controls and would have a unique identifier that Participants could
track, report on, and query via the Participant's ClaimConnect
dashboard. ClaimConnect also permits both parties to an adjustment to
submit a claim at the same time, and it would notify the parties when
an adjustment was submitted. Moreover, because adjustments would be
validated and matched in ClaimConnect, either automatically by the
ClaimConnect service or manually by the parties, the parties would not
need to submit multiple adjustments to reach agreement.
    Additionally, DTC believes that manual adjustments via ClaimConnect
would be cheaper than via the APO service. Although ClaimConnect costs
$1.75 per side, per-matched claim (i.e., both parties to a claim are
charged $1.75, for a total of $3.50, once the claim is confirmed),\12\
whereas an APO adjustment only costs $1.50 per adjustment, not per side
(i.e., only the party that submits the adjustment is charged
$1.50),\13\ because there is no validation and matching process for APO
adjustments, the parties often need to submit multiple APO adjustments
between each other before reaching final agreement. Therefore, the
total cost for a manual adjustment via the APO service routinely
exceeds $3.50. With ClaimConnect, however, because there would be a
validation and matching process for each adjustment claim, only one
adjustment would be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Fee ID 710, Guide to the DTC Fee Schedule (``Fee Guide''),
available at http://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/feeguides/dtcfeeguide.pdf.
    \13\ Fee ID 709, Fee Guide, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to updating the Distributions Guide regarding the above
described changes for manual adjustments, an update would be made to
correct a misspelling in the Guide's ``Interim Accounting'' section.
Specifically, the word ``include'' would be changed to ``included''
(emphasis added).
    To effectuate this proposed rule change, (i) the ``Correcting P&I
Payments on Stock Loan Positions'' and the ``Correcting REPO
Positions'' subsections of the Distributions Guide would be updated to
direct Participants to use ClaimConnect instead of the APO service to
make manual adjustments, and (ii) the ``With DTC's Interim Accounting''
subsection of the Guide would be update to correct the misspelling
described above.
Effective Date
    The proposed change to no longer allow Participants to use the APO
service to submit manual adjustments but, instead, require Participants
to use ClaimConnect for manual adjustments processed through DTC would
become effective July 9, 2021. Participants will be notified by
Important Notice, posted on DTC's website. Separately, the proposed
change to correct the misspelling describe above would be made promptly
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\14\ requires that the rules of the
clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. DTC
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this
provision of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal would update the Distributions
Guide to direct Participants to use ClaimConnect instead of the APO
service to make manual adjustments. By no longer allowing manual
adjustments via the APO service and, instead, requiring Participants to
use ClaimConnect, if they wish to have manual adjustments processed
through DTC, the proposal not only addresses the various shortcomings
of using the APO service for such adjustments, as described above, but
also continues to provide a means for Participants to process manual
adjustments through DTC. Moreover, ClaimConnect is simply a better
platform for processing manual adjustments, given its superior
functionality, as noted above and described in detail in the
ClaimConnect Service Guide.\15\ In short, DTC believes this change
would improve the processing and settlement of manual adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ClaimConnect Service Guide, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also would correct a misspelled word in the ``Interim
Accounting'' section of the Distributions Guide, as described above. By
correcting the misspelling, the proposal would improve the Guide's
clarity for Participants regarding DTC's interim accounting process,
alleviating any confusion that the error may have caused.
    For these reasons, DTC believes that the proposed rule change helps
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed change to update the
Distributions Guide to direct Participants to use ClaimConnect instead
of the APO service to make manual adjustments will have any impact on
competition because Participants would continue to have the option to
submit manual adjustments through DTC, albeit via ClaimConnect instead
of the APO service. If anything, DTC believes this proposed change may
promote competition because, as noted above, ClaimConnect would be a
superior platform for processing manual adjustments and, as also noted
above, it may prove to be a cheaper option than using the APO service.
Any time or resources Participants save by using ClaimConnect instead
of the APO service could be directed to other endeavors.
    Meanwhile, DTC does not believe the proposed correction to the
misspelled word in the Distributions Guide will have any impact on
competition because it will simply correct a typographical error.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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.
    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \18\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-DTC-2021-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2021-007. 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 website (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 website 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 DTC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2021-007 and should be submitted on
or before May 27, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09526 Filed 5-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 46293-46294]
[DOCID:fr08se09-158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

City of Plano, Illinois

Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0066

    The City of Plano, Illinois (City) seeks a permanent waiver of
compliance from a certain provision of the Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222. The City intends to
establish a New Quiet Zone under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 222.39.
Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver from the provisions of 49
CFR Part 222.9, definition of a non-traversable curb so that an
existing public crossing that is equipped with flashing lights, gates
and medians that complies with all of the requirements necessary to be
a ``gates and medians'' supplemental safety measure (SSM) with non-
traversable curbs, except for the fact that the posted highway speed
limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) instead of 40 mph as required in the
definition, be deemed an acceptable SSM.
    49 CFR Part 222.9, the definition of Non-traversable curb reads as
follows: ``Non-traversable curb means a highway curb designed to
discourage a motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. Non-traversable
curbs are used at locations where highway speeds do not exceed 40 miles
per hour and are at least six inches high. Additional design
specifications are determined by the standard traffic design
specifications used by the governmental entity constructing the curb.''
    The City is in the process of establishing a new quiet zone along
the BNSF Railway's (BNSF) Chicago Division, Mendota Subdivision, which

would extend from approximately Milepost 48.71 to Milepost 50.76. The
new quiet zone will consist of two public at-grade crossings: Eldamain
Road (DOT 079586F) and Needham (DOT 079588U). The
City seeks a waiver from the requirement that medians with non-
traversable curbing may not be used where highway speeds exceed 40 mph.
The Eldamain Road grade crossing is equipped with standard flashing
lights, flashing lights on cantilevers, gates and medians that are 200
feet in length. The curbing on the medians is at least 6 inches in
height. The posted highway speed is 45 mph.
    The City provides several reasons why the 5 mph difference in speed
limit would not diminish the effectiveness of the SSM, and thus the
waiver should be granted. First, the existing median is much wider (12-
foot) than the typical medians used for this application. The median is
also twice as long as the nominal required length (100-foot) as it is
200 feet in length. The City points out that the median installation
has performed properly and without incident since its installation,
approximately 13 years ago.
    Secondly, the design used by the Kendall County Highway Department
(the public authority responsible for roadway and has consented to the
establishment of the proposed new quiet zone) follows the Illinois
Department of Transportation standard which allows curbed medians on
highways with speed limits of 40 or 45 mph. The City feels that this
standard should be allowable under the clause ``Additional design
specifications * * *'' in the definition.
    Lastly, the City states that the Kendall County Highway Department
opposes the creation of a 40 mph speed zone in the vicinity of the
crossing as it wants to avoid multiple speed zones on the same roadway.
However, the County Engineer has expressed a willingness to post
advisory 40 mph signs in advance of the crossing in each direction.
    The City's waiver petition did not directly address efforts made to
have the BNSF join in the waiver request. However, attachments that
were included with the waiver request indicated that communication
between the two parties on the subject of a joint waiver request did
occur. On June 15, 2009, a representative of the consulting firm
utilized by the City to assist with the establishment of the new quiet
zone sent an e-mail to the Manager of Public Projects for BNSF. The e-
mail specifically requested that BNSF participate in the process so
that the waiver could be forwarded to FRA as a ``joint waiver request''
and to reconsider its interpretation of the definition of the non-
traversable curb. In a letter to the City dated June 22, 2009, BNSF
acknowledged receipt of the joint waiver request but did not
specifically address the issue. BNSF stated that the questions should
be posed to FRA and that BNSF was going by FRA's regulation which
provides that the highway speed must be 40 mph or less. The City did
not provide any justification as to why the absence of BNSF's
participation in the waiver would affect safety.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0066) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 31, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-21503 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35981]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3133-033]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Errol Hydro Co., LLC; Notice of
Reasonable Period of Time for Water Quality Certification Application

    On June 3, 2022, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC and Errol Hydro
Co., LLC submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) evidence of its application for a Clean Water Act section
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services, in conjunction with the above
captioned project. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act \1\
and section [4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, or 157.22] of the Commission's
regulations,\2\ a state certifying agency is deemed to have waived its
certifying authority if it fails or refuses to act on a certification
request within a reasonable period of time, which is one year after the
date the certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby
notify the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services of the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
    \2\ 18 CFR [4.34(b)(5)/5.23(b)/153.4/157.22].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date that New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Received the Certification Request: June 1, 2022.
    If New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services fails or
refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before
June 1, 2023, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: June 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12767 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9338-9339]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02887]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10020-03-Region 1]

Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Proposed Settlement Agreement and
Covenant Not To Sue Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; In Re: Mohawk
Tannery Site, Located in Nashua, New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby providing
notice of a proposed settlement agreement concerning the Mohawk Tannery
Site in Nashua, New Hampshire. The settlement agreement is entered into
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (``CERCLA''), and the authority of the
Attorney General of the United States to compromise and settle claims
of the United States. The proposed settlement agreement is between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and bona fide
prospective purchaser Blaylock Holdings, LLC (``Settling Party''). The
proposed Settlement Agreement requires the Settling Party to conduct
work under EPA oversight in exchange for a covenant not to sue pursuant
to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, for existing contamination at the
Mohawk Tannery Site. The Settlement provides the Settling Party with
pre-authorized mixed funding for the work. The Settling Party consents
to and will not contest the authority of the United States to enter
into this Agreement or to implement or enforce its terms. The Settling
Parties recognize that this Agreement has been negotiated in good faith
and that this Agreement is entered into without the admission or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law.

DATES: EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement
until March 15, 2021. The Agency will consider all comments received
and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent via email and addressed to RuthAnn
Sherman, Senior Enforcement Counsel,

Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109 at email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
should refer to: In the Matter of: Mohawk Tannery Site, U.S. EPA Region
1, Docket No. CERCLA-01-2020-0063.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The proposed settlement and additional
background information relating to the settlement are available for
public inspection at the U.S. EPA Region 1 OSRR Records and Information
Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109. In addition,
a copy of the proposed settlement agreement can be obtained from
RuthAnn Sherman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information on the Mohawk Tannery
Site can be found through the U.S. EPA Region I website at: epa.gov/superfund/mohawk.

Bryan Olson,
Director, Superfund and Emergency Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region
I.
[FR Doc. 2021-02887 Filed 2-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55469-55470]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications

Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Communication
                Docket No.                       date                      Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP08-6-000........................          8-20-12  Richard Kinder
    2. CP11-161-000......................          8-23-12  Jolie DeFeis \1\
Exempt:
    1. CP11-515-000......................          8-24-12  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Staff \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email record.
\2\ Email record.

    Dated: September 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22179 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P