[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59763]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-200-013]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Negotiated Rate

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, Rockies Express Pipeline
LLC (REX) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an
effective date of October 1, 2006:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 22
Third Revised Sheet Mp/24

    REX stated that a copy of this filing has been served upon all
parties to this proceeding, REX's customers, the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission and the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16767 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


participants are aware of the methodology that will be utilized to
calculate outcomes for allocation purposes.
Options 3, Section 12 and 22
    The adoption of Customer Cross Orders is consistent with the Act
because this proposal would permit Participants to enter and execute
paired Public Customer-to-Public Customer Orders automatically outside
of a PRISM Auction, while also protecting Public Customer Orders on the
book at the same price. Today, the Exchange permits an Initiating
Participant to enter a PRISM Order for the account of a Public Customer
paired with an order

for the account of a Public Customer and such paired orders will be
automatically executed without a PRISM Auction.\64\ The Exchange's
proposal would continue to permit the ability to enter Public Customer-
to-Public Customer paired orders to be automatically executed, however,
not require these orders to be first entered into PRISM. A Public
Customer-to-Public Customer order submitted into PRISM directly would
be subject to execution pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(i) and (ii).
The Exchange is removing the current provisions within Options 3,
Section (iv) with this proposed rule change. Similar to ISE, GEMX and
MRX rules,\65\ BX would require Customer Crossing Orders to be entered
into the Order Book. The Exchange's proposal would require executions
to be at or between the best bid and offer on the Exchange and not at
the same price as a Public Customer Order on the Exchange's Order Book.
Finally, the execution may not be through the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Options 3, Section 13(vi). The execution price for such
a PRISM Order must be expressed in the quoting increment applicable
to the affected series. Such an execution may not trade through the
NBBO or trade at the same price as any resting Public Customer
order.
    \65\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange is limiting these orders to be entered through
FIX, any market participant may utilize FIX. The Exchange believes that
this proposal would allow all Participants the ability to continue
automatically execute paired to enter Public Customer-to-Public
Customer Orders as they do today, without the need to utilize PRISM.
Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Orders will be rejected if
they cannot be executed, as is the case today. Finally, Public
Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Orders may only be entered in the
regular trading increments applicable to the options class under
Options 3, Section 3, as is the case today. Today, a Public Customer-
to-Public Customer paired order could only be entered into PRISM to
receive the treatment described within proposed Options 3, Section
13(vi). With this proposal, the manner in which Public Customer-to-
Public Customer paired orders are being processed by the System is
changing. With this proposal, Participants may enter Public Customer-
to-Public Customer paired orders directly into FIX and receive the same
treatment that these orders receive today when entered into PRISM. The
only difference to a Participant is the manner in which the order must
now be submitted directly into FIX to initiate a Customer Cross Order.
    Further, the elimination of BX Options 3, Section 13(vi) is
consistent with the Act because Public Customer-to-Public Customer
Cross Orders would no longer be entered as PRISM Orders. With this
proposal Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Orders would be
entered through FIX as Customer Cross Order. The prohibition expressed
within current BX Options 3, Section 13(vi) provided for only one PRISM
Auction to be conducted at a time in any given series. Today, to
initiate the Auction, the Initiating Participant must mark the PRISM
Order for Auction processing. With this proposal, Public Customer-to-
Public Customer Cross Orders would not be tagged as a PRISM Auction.
The Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Orders would be entered as
a separate order type and therefore would not potentially cause more
than one PRISM Auction to occur in the same series.
    In conjunction with this change, BX proposes to add the Customer
Cross Order to Options 3, Section 22(a) and (c) as an exception to the
rules for limitations on principal transactions and solicitation
orders, which require Participants to expose trading interest to the
market before executing agency orders as principal or before executing
agency orders against orders that were solicited from other broker-
dealers. Options 3, Section 22 contains language similar to current BX
Options 3, Section 13(vi)(A). The Exchange believes that its proposal
continue to protect customers and the general public by affirming that
it is a violation of BX Options 3, Section 22(a)(1) for a Participant
from executing agency orders to increase its economic gain from trading
against the order without first giving other trading interests on the
Exchange an opportunity to either trade with the agency order or to
trade at the execution price when the Participant was already bidding
or offering on the book.\66\ The Exchange would surveil Public
Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Orders in the same fashion that it
already surveils for these orders on ISE, GEMX and MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Options 3, Section 22(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 3, Section 13
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the System functionality, within
Options 3, Section 13, similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section
13, to better any limit order or quote on the limit order book on the
same side of the market as the PRISM Order, within Options 3, Section
13(i)(A) and (B), is consistent with the Act because expanding its
consideration to both quotes and orders will consider a greater amount
of interest present on BX's Order Book when initiating a PRISM. The
addition of ``quotes,'' similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX at Options 3,
Section 13, will enable the Exchange to consider additional interest in
determining eligibility for PRISM. Today, BX Options 3, Section 13 only
considers orders. With this System change, quotes and orders would be
considered in determining the execution price of the PRISM order. This
change will not impact the handling of orders and quotes and their
respective priority on the limit order book. The Exchange is proposing
to add ``or quote,'' within proposed Options 3, Sections 13(i) and (A)
and (B) and (ii)(A)(1).
    The Exchange's proposal to state the minimum increment allowable
directly within the rule and not utilize references to Options 3,
Section 3 is consistent with the Act because the Exchange will note the
exact increment within the rule. This amendment does not amend the
current System operation, rather it more simply states what that
minimum increment is today. The Exchange proposes similar changes at
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1), Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(6),
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(C) and Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I).
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the System functionality, within
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1), for Surrender language is consistent
with the Act because an Initiating Participant will be able to submit
an Initiating Order with a configurable percentage designation of
``Surrender'' up to 40% or such lower percentage requested by the
Participant. Today, the System permits an Initiating Participant to
elect to receive either the full 40% allocation entitlement or no
allocation at all. The Exchange believes that the proposed feature will
provide an Initiating Participant with more flexibility to choose its
priority allocation percentage, similar to functionality currently
offered on ISE, GEMX and MRX at Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(iii). Any
Initiating Participant may elect to use the PRISM Surrender feature.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1) to
remove the following rule text, ``. . . forfeiting the priority and
trade allocation privileges which he is otherwise entitled to as per. .
.'', is consistent with the Act, because the proposed text defines
``Surrender'' as the percentage designation, which the Exchange
believes more accurately defines ``Surrender.''

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the second sentence of Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(A)(1) to instead provide, ``If zero (0%) is specified,
the Initiating Order will only trade if there is not enough interest
available to fully execute the PRISM Order at prices which are equal to
or improve upon the stop price,'' is consistent with the Act. The
proposed text makes clear that if no percentage were elected for
Surrender (0%) then the Initiating Order will only trade if there is
not enough interest available to fully execute the PRISM Order at
prices which are equal to or improve upon the stop price.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(2) to
add ``price'' to the PRISM Auction Notification or ``PAN,'' as part of
the technology migration, is consistent with the Act because adding
``price'' to the list of details will provide Participants with greater
transparency with respect to the PRISM and could encourage more
competition in PRISM and greater opportunity for potential price
improvement in PRISM. This rule change is similar to the behavior of
PAN responses on ISE, GEMX and MRX.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(7) to
conform the behavior of PAN responses to ISE, GEMX and MRX System
behavior \68\ is consistent with the Act. As noted above, the Exchange
is amending the System to accept oversized responses. These responses
will no longer cancel back, rather, PRISM will cap the response at the
size of the Initiating Order for purposes of allocation and then cancel
any remaining quantity not allocated in the PRISM, including any
quantity in excess of the original PRISM quantity, back to the
originator of the PAN response at the end of the auction timer.
Responses are a source of liquidity and potential price improvement,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to accept these responses and
cap them at the size of the Initiating Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(8)
and (9) to replace the words ``immediately cancelled'' with
``rejected'' is a non-substantive technical amendment. Non-eligible and
non-compliant orders that are submitted into PRISM are rejected as
those orders are reviewed for compliance with Exchange Rules, these
orders are not immediately cancelled, as technically there is time,
however miniscule, between the submission of the order and the
rejection of the order. The Exchange believes this non-substantive
change adds more clarity to the rule text.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(E)(2)(a)
to provide the Initiating Participant with a priority allocation based
on the initial size of the Initiating Order after Public Customer
interest has been satisfied is consistent with the Act. Allocating
based on the ``initial size of the Initiating Order'' provides an
expectation for Participants that respond to PRISM Orders, whether that
allocation is price/time,\69\ size pro-rata \70\ or auto-match.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ At the conclusion of the Auction, for option classes
governed under BX's Price/Time execution algorithm, the PRISM Order
will be allocated at the best price(s), pursuant to the priority set
forth in proposed Options 3, Section 13(ii)(F)(1) through (4).
First, Public Customer orders would have time priority at each price
level. Next, the Initiating Participant would receive an allocation
after Public Customer orders.
    \70\ At the conclusion of the Auction, for option classes
governed under BX's Size Pro-Rata execution algorithm, the PRISM
Order will be allocated at the best price(s), pursuant to the
priority set forth in Options 3, Section 13(ii)(E)(1) through (5).
    \71\ If the Initiating Participant selected the auto-match
option, the Initiating Participant would be allocated a number of
contracts equal to the aggregate size of all other quotes, orders,
and PAN responses at each price point until a price point is reached
where the balance of the order can be fully executed, except that
the Initiating Participant would be entitled to receive up to 40%
(if there are multiple competing quotes, orders or PAN responses) or
50% (if there is only one competing quote, order or PAN response) of
the contracts remaining at the final price point (including
situations where the stop price is the final price) after Public
Customer interest has been satisfied but before remaining interest
receives an allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed change, the Exchange believes that Participants
are better able to determine their allocation when responding with a
PAN if the Initiating Participant's allocation is based on the initial
size of the Initiating Order after Public Customer interest is
satisfied, rather than the remaining contracts after Public Customer
interest is satisfied. The Exchange's proposal provides greater
transparency to market participants in that when they respond to the
PRISM, they are aware of the initiating size, as compared to an
undetermined remaining size which is unknown as responses are not
visible to all market participants. The Exchange's proposal is similar
to ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(3).\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(3), provides,
``In the case where the Counter-Side Order is at the same price as
Professional Interest in (d)(2), the Counter-Side order will be
allocated the greater of one (1) contract or forty percent (40%) of
the initial size of the Agency Order before Professional Interest is
executed. Upon entry of Counter-Side orders, Members can elect to
automatically match the price and size of orders, quotes and
responses received during the exposure period up to a specified
limit price or without specifying a limit price. In this case, the
Counter-Side order will be allocated its full size at each price
point, or at each price point within its limit price if a limit is
specified, until a price point is reached where the balance of the
order can be fully executed. At such price point, the Counter-Side
order shall be allocated the greater of one contract or forty
percent (40%) of the original size of the Agency Order, but only
after Priority Customer Interest at such price point are executed in
full. Thereafter, all Professional Interest at the price point will
participate in the execution of the Agency Order based upon the
percentage of the total number of contracts available at the price
that is represented by the size of the Professional Interest. An
election to automatically match better prices cannot be cancelled or
altered during the exposure period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend rounding, within Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(G), is consistent with the Act. Today, BX PRISM rounds
up or down to the nearest integer when it allocates. The Exchange is
amending the rounding methodology to round up to the nearest integer.
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(G) will reflect the new methodology and
provide notice to Participants of this change to the methodology. The
rounding methodology will be uniformly applied when allocating PRISM
Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(H) to
remove the phrase ``then-existing'' and instead note ``at time of
execution'' to describe the NBBO is consistent with the Act. The
Exchange is not amending the current operation of the System, rather
the Exchange is amending its rules to more accurately state, ``If there
are PAN responses that cross the NBBO at the time of execution
(provided such NBBO is not crossed), such PAN responses will be
executed, if possible, at their limit price(s).'' The current text
appeared to state that the System was utilizing the NBBO upon execution
to check if the PAN responses crossed the NBBO, however, the System
utilizes the NBBO at the time of arrival to check of the PAN responses
cross the NBBO. This amendment promotes just and equitable principles
of trade, because it will ensure the execution price does not cross the
Initial NBBO in accordance with linkage rules. This proposed
clarification is not changing current functionality, and this
functionality applies in the same manner to the responses of all
Participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I) is
consistent with the Act, because the Exchange seeks to make clear the
current text contained in this section. The Exchange's proposal to add
context to the rule to better reflect the current System operation is
consistent with the Act because without the word

``execution'' in this sentence, a comparison of the ``price of the
PRISM auction'' does not clearly differentiate the price in question as
the execution price of the PRISM Auction or the original stop price of
the PRISM Order. Without this clear differentiation, current Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(I) can be interpreted to describe scenarios that cannot
happen. The Exchange's proposed addition of the word ``execution'' in
the first sentence of Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I) reflects current
System handling. The execution price of the PRISM Auction is utilized
to compare to the price of an order on the limit Order Book. Adding the
word ``execution'' makes clear to Participants that the initial PRISM
stop price is not utilized to compare the same side of the market
transactions. Also, if the potential execution price of the PRISM Order
would be the same or better than the price of an order on the limit
Order Book on the same side of the market as the PRISM Order then,
today, would be executed at a price $0.01 better than such limit order,
regardless of whether such limit was a Public or Non-Public Customer
Order. While ``or better'' is not clearly specified, it is the case
today and its inclusion is meant to capture cases where PAN responses
provide price improvement for the PRISM Order at prices that are
crossed with the same side interest mentioned above. The proposed
wording is intended to provide greater clarity to Participants for
System handling with respect to same side of the market executions
against the Order Book and is consistent with the Act and the
protection of investors and the general public. The proposed amendments
reflect current System handling are would not result in changes to the
System. The remaining amendments are technical in that the change and
non-substantive as the change merely structures the paragraph into two
sentences.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(K) to
add introductory text which defines a PRISM ISO is consistent with the
Act. Phlx similarly describes a PIXL ISO in its rule text at Options 3,
Section 13(b)(11).\73\ This text does not amend the current System
functionality, rather it adds context to the current PRISM rule in
describing a PRISM ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(11) states, ``PIXL ISO Order.
A PIXL ISO order (PIXL ISO) is the transmission of two orders for
crossing pursuant to this Rule without regard for better priced
Protected Bids/Offers (as defined in Options 5, Section 1) because
the member transmitting the PIXL ISO to the Exchange has,
simultaneously with the routing of the PIXL ISO, routed one or more
ISOs, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of
any Protected Bid/Offer that is superior to the starting PIXL
Auction price and has swept all interest in the Exchange's book
priced better than the proposed Auction starting price. Any
execution(s) resulting from such sweeps shall accrue to the PIXL
Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to correct Options 3, Section 13(ii)(K) to
add ``on the contra-side of the PRISM Order'' is consistent with the
Act, because this rule text clearly describes the current System
operation. The Exchange states ``on the contra-side of the PRISM
Order'' to distinguish the contra-side from the same side of the order,
which receives different treatment in allocation. This proposed
amendment is intended to clarify the current System operation, not
amend the System.
    Finally, the Exchange's proposal to renumber Options 3, Section
13(vii) to ``(vi)'' is a technical non-substantive amendment.
Options 3, Section 23
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 23, Data Feeds
and Trade Information, to update its descriptions of the BX Depth of
Market (BX Depth) and BX Top of Market (BX Top) data feeds is
consistent with the Act, because the updated descriptions will bring
greater transparency to the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange's proposal will make clear that order imbalance
information is provided for both an opening and re-opening process
within BX Depth. Today, a re-opening process initiates after a trading
halt has occurred intra-day. Also, the Exchange's proposal notes the
specific information that would be provided in the data feed, namely
the size of matched contracts and size of the imbalance. Finally the
auction and exposure notifications are also provided in the data feed.
The Exchange believes that this additional context to imbalance
messages as well as also noting that auction and exposure notifications
are provided will provide market participants with more complete
information about what is contained in the data feed. This information
is available today within the data feed. The proposed rule text is
being amended to make clear what information is currently provided.
    With respect to the BX Top data feed, within Options 3, Section
23(a)(2), the amended description more clearly describes the BX Top
data feed. Further, the Exchange believes noting that the last trade
information is provided will make clear to market participants the data
that is currently available on BX Top. This information is available in
the data feed today and the rule text is being amended to make clear
what information is currently provided.

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.
Options 1, Section 1
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the definition of ``Public
Customer'' to conform to Phlx's definition does not impose an undue
burden on competition because it will make clear that a Public Customer
could be a person or entity and clarifying that a Public Customer is
not a Professional, as defined within Options 1, Section 1(a)(48),\74\
will make clear what it meant by that term. Today, a Public Customer is
not a Professional. The term `Professional'' is separately defined,
within BX Options 1, Section 1(a)(48). In order to properly represent
orders entered on the Exchange, Participants are required to indicate
whether orders are ``Professional Orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ BX Options 1, Section 1(a)(48) provides that, ``The term
``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker
or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s). A Participant or a Public Customer may,
without limitation, be a Professional. All Professional orders shall
be appropriately marked by Participants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange's proposal to remove a sentence within
Options 1, Section 1(a)(48) which provides, ``A Participant or a Public
Customers may, without limitation, be a Professional,'' does not impose
an undue burden on competition. This sentence is confusing and not
necessary. Phlx Options 1, Section 1(b)(46) does not contain a similar
sentence. BX proposes removing this sentence because it does not add
useful information to understanding who may qualify as a Professional.
Bid/Ask Differentials
    The Exchange's proposal to amend BX's Lead Market Maker quotation
rules to conform to those of other BX Market Makers does not impose an
undue burden on competition. This proposal conforms the requirements
for all Market Makers. Today, Lead Market Makers have higher quoting
requirements and other obligations noted within Options 2, Section 3,
than Market Makers, which accounts for their priority allocations,
within Options 3, Section 10.\75\ The Exchange is proposing

to allow Lead Market Makers to obtain similar quoting relief as, today,
may be provided to Market Makers. There is no limitation on the quoting
relief that may be afforded to Market Makers today, the Exchange is
proposing to conform the ability for the Exchange to grant quoting
relief equally to Market Makers and Lead Market Makers in the same
option series. Today, while a Lead Market Maker has higher quoting
obligations they have less opportunity for quoting relief in a certain
options series as compared to a Market Maker who is quoting in the same
options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See BX Options 3, Section 10(a)(1)(C)(1)(b) and Section
10(a)(2)(ii) which describe Lead Market Maker Priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Replacing Options 2, Section 4(f)(4)-(6) with the rule text, within
BX Options 2, Section 5(d)(2), would continue to require Lead Market
Makers to quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and
offer regardless of the price of the bid. However, instead of requiring
Lead Market Makers to quote a price differential for any in-the-money
option series identical to those in the underlying security market, in
the event the bid/ask differential in the underlying security is
greater than the bid/ask differential set forth in subsections (f)(4)
and (5), the Exchange would now permit the bid/ask differential to be
as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the
underlying security when the market for the underlying security is
wider than $5.
    Further, the additional allowance and exemptions are no longer
necessary because the Exchange proposes to add rule text, similar to BX
Options 2, Section 4(f)(5) and BX Options 5, Section 5(d)(2), which
permits BX to establish differences other than the stated bid/ask
differentials, for one or more series or classes of options. The
ability to establish differences, other than the stated bid/ask
differentials, for one or more series or classes of options already
exists today for BX Lead Market Maker quoting requirements, however
this discretion is limited by BX Options 2, Section 4(f)(6).\76\ The
Exchange's proposal would align the procedural BX would follow with
other options exchanges, which notify members in writing of any
discretion that is being granted by the Exchange. BX would no longer
file a report with BX operations. Today, no other Nasdaq exchange files
a report when it grants exemptions, including exemptions for BX Market
Makers. Decisions to grant exemptions are made based on current market
conditions. Exchanges need to be able to react when market conditions
change dramatically and require the Exchange to grant relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See BX Options 2, Section 4(f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 3, Section 5
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 5(c) to add
additional rule text similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 5(c) does not
impose an undue burden on competition. Today, BX re-prices certain
orders to avoid locking and crossing away markets, consistent with its
Trade-Through Compliance and Locked or Crossed Markets obligations.\77\
Orders which lock or cross an away market will automatically re-price
one minimum price improvement inferior to the original away best bid/
offer price to one minimum trading increment away from the new away
best bid/offer price or its original limit price.\78\ The re-priced
order is displayed on OPRA. The order remains on BX's Order Book and is
accessible at the non-displayed price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ BX Options 3, Section 5(d) provides, ``An order will not be
executed at a price that trades through another market or displayed
at a price that would lock or cross another market. An order that is
designated by the member as routable will be routed in compliance
with applicable Trade-Through and Locked and Crossed Markets
restrictions. An order that is designated by a member as non-
routable will be re-priced in order to comply with applicable Trade-
Through and Locked and Crossed Markets restrictions. If, at the time
of entry, an order that the entering party has elected not to make
eligible for routing would cause a locked or crossed market
violation or would cause a trade-through violation, it will be re-
priced to the current national best offer (for bids) or the current
national best bid (for offers) and displayed at one minimum price
variance above (for offers) or below (for bids) the national best
price.''
    \78\ See Options 5, Section 4 (Order Routing), which describes
the repricing of orders for both routable and non-routable orders
within Options 5, Section 4(a)(iii)(A), (B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 3, Section 7
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Cancel-Replacement Order,
within Options 3, Section 7(a)(1), does not impose an undue burden on
competition. Price and size are the terms that will determine if the
Cancel-Replacement Order retains its priority, as is the case today,
other terms and conditions do not amend the priority of the Cancel-
Replacement Order. The Exchange is not amending the current System
functionality of a Cancel-Replacement Order with respect to the terms
that will cause the order to lose priority. Today, the price of the
order may not be changed when submitting a Cancel-Replacement Order,
that would be a new order.
    With this proposal, all Cancel-Replacement Orders would receive
price or other reasonability checks as a result of being viewed as new
orders. If a Cancel-Replacement Order does not pass a price or other
reasonability check, the order will cancel, but it will not be replaced
with a new order. The Limit Order Price Protection and Market Order
Spread Protection are the only risk protections within Options 3,
Section 15 (Risk Protections) that are applicable. Price or other
reasonability checks consider the current market at the time the
Cancel-Replacement Order is entered. The Exchange proposes to begin
applying price or other reasonability checks to all Cancel-Replacement
Orders, similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX, to provide market participants
with additional risk protection checks with the re-entry of the Cancel-
Replacement Order. This proposed rule is similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX
Rules at Options 3, Section 7 at Supplementary Material .02, except
that ISE, GEMX and MRX discuss Reserve Orders, which are not available
on BX.\79\ All risk protections are noted within Options 3, Section 15.
Those risk protections apply throughout the Rulebook, except where
otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 7 at Supplementary
Material .02, provides, ``Cancel and Replace Orders shall mean a
single message for the immediate cancellation of a previously
received order and the replacement of that order with a new order.
If the previously placed order is already filled partially or in its
entirety, the replacement order is automatically canceled or reduced
by the number of contracts that were executed. The replacement order
will retain the priority of the cancelled order, if the order posts
to the Order Book, provided the price is not amended, size is not
increased, or in the case of Reserve Orders, size is not changed. If
the replacement portion of a Cancel and Replace Order does not
satisfy the System's price or other reasonability checks (e.g.
Options 3, Section 15(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B); and Supplementary
Material .07 (a)(1)(A), (b) and (c)(1) to Options 8, Section 14) the
existing order shall be cancelled and not replaced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend ``Market Orders,'' within Options
3, Section 7(a)(5) does not amend the manner in which a Market Order
operates today on BX. The Exchange's proposal to add a notation at the
end of the rule to provide that ``Participants can designate that their
Market Orders not executed after a pre-established period of time, as
established by the Exchange, will be cancelled back to the Participant,
once an option series has opened for trading'' adds specificity
regarding the opening. Market Orders submitted during the opening may
be executed, routed (depending on instructions from the market
participant) or cancelled if the Market Order is priced through the
opening price. The Exchange would only cancel those Market Orders that
remained on the Order Book once an option series opened. The pre-
established period of time would commence once the intra-

day trading session begins for that options series and the order would
be cancelled back to the Participant, provided the Participant elected
to cancel back its Market Orders. The Exchange's proposal
differentiates when the opening is on-going, and the intra-day trading
session has not commenced, the manner in which the pre-established
period of time would commence.
    The proposal to note that ``Market Orders on the Order Book would
be immediately cancelled if an options series halted, provided the
Participant designated the cancellation of Market Orders'' specifically
addresses trading halts within the rule. Once an options series halts
for trading, the Exchange conducts another Opening Process. In the case
where a Market Order was resting on the Order Book, and the Participant
had designated the cancellation of Market Orders, in the event of a
halt, the Market Orders resting on the Order Book would immediately
cancel. Market Orders would apply uniformly to all market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend ``Intermarket Sweep Order'' Order
or ``ISO,'' within Options 3, Section 7(a)(6), does no impose an undue
burden on competition. The Exchange is amending the current
functionality of an ISO Order to require that ISOs have a time-in-force
designation of Immediate-or-Cancel. Today, ISOs with a time-in-force
designation of GTC are treated as having a time-in-force designation of
Day. All ISO Orders would be treated in a uniform manner.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the ``One-Cancels-the-Other
Order'' and ``WAIT'' TIF do not impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange will no longer permit this order type and TIF for any
market participant with the technology migration. Further, it will
remove an order type that is not in demand on BX and simply the
offerings provided by BX.
    The Exchange's proposal to include a ``PRISM Order'' and ``Customer
Cross Order'' in the list of order types does not impose an undue
burden on competition because the addition of these terms within the
list of order types simply cross-references the existing order types
and does not change the functionality of the order types.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend an ``Immediate-Or-Cancel'' Order
or ``IOC,'' within Options 3, Section 7(b)(2), does not impose an undue
burden on competition. The Exchange is adding additional context,
similar to Phlx, with respect to routing, submission through FIX or SQF
and the price protections that apply when utilizing SQF, which will
provide market participants with greater information for the protection
of investors and the general public. Market Makers utilize IOC Orders
to trade out of accumulated positions and manage their risk when
providing liquidity on the Exchange. Proper risk management, including
using these IOC Orders to offload risk, is vital for Market Makers, and
allows them to maintain tight markets and meet their quoting and other
obligations to the market. The Exchange believes that allowing Market
Makers to submit IOC Orders though their preferred protocol increases
their efficiency in submitting such orders and thereby allow them to
maintain quality markets to the benefit of all market participants that
trade on the Exchange. Further, unlike other market participants,
Market Makers provide liquidity to the market place and have
obligations.\80\ The Exchange believes not offering Order Price
Protection and Market Order Spread Protection for IOC Orders entered
through SQF does not create a burden on competition because Market
Makers have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market
participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with
respect to quoting, using tools that are not available to other market
participants.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Market Makers have quoting obligations as specified in
Options 2, Section 5(d).
    \81\ Market quotes are subject to various protections listed in
Options 3, Section 15(c). These additional quoting protections
permit Market Makers to manage their exposure at the Exchange. Other
market participants would not be subject to these risk protections
because they do not submit quotes or utilize SQF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of the amendments, within Options 3, Section 7, are
technical in nature or non-substantive.
Options 3, Section 10
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Order Book allocation rule,
within Options 3, Section 10, to amend the manner in which rounding
occurs does not create a burden on competition because the Exchange is
proposing to make transparent the manner in which rounding will occur
once the technology migration occurs. All Participants will be subject
to the rounding methodology when PRISM Orders allocate.
Options 3, Section 12 and 22
    The adoption of Customer Cross Orders does not impose an undue
burden on competition. This proposal would continue to permit any
Participant to enter and execute paired Public Customer-to-Public
Customer Orders automatically outside of a PRISM Auction, while also
protecting Public Customer Orders on the book at the same price. Today,
the Exchange permits an Initiating Participant to enter a PRISM Order
for the account of a Public Customer paired with an order for the
account of a Public Customer and such paired orders will be
automatically executed without a PRISM Auction.\82\ While the Exchange
is limiting these orders to be entered through FIX, any market
participant may utilize FIX. The Exchange's proposal would continue to
permit the ability to enter Public Customer-to-Public Customer paired
orders to be automatically executed, however, not require these orders
to be first entered into PRISM. A Public Customer-to-Public Customer
order submitted into PRISM directly would be subject to execution
pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(i) and (ii). With this proposal, all
Participants may enter Public Customer-to-Public Customer paired orders
into FIX and receive the same treatment that these orders receive today
when entered into PRISM. The elimination of Options 3, Section 13(vi)
does not impose an undue burden on competition because Public Customer-
to-Public Customer Cross Orders would be entered as a separate order
type and therefore would not potentially cause more than one PRISM
Auction to occur in the same series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See BX Options 3, Section 13(vi). The execution price for
such a PRISM Order must be expressed in the quoting increment
applicable to the affected series. Such an execution may not trade
through the NBBO or trade at the same price as any resting Public
Customer order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 3, Section 13
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the System functionality, within
Options 3, Section 13, similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section
13, to better any limit order or quote on the limit order book on the
same side of the market as the PRISM Order, within Options 3, Section
13(i)(A) and (B), does not impose an undue burden on competition. The
addition of ``quotes,'' similar to ISE, GEMX and MRX at Options 3,
Section 13, will enable the Exchange to consider additional interest in
determining eligibility for PRISM.
    The Exchange's proposal to state the minimum increment allowable
directly within the rule and not utilize references to Options 3,
Section 3 does not impose an undue burden on competition as these
amendments merely restate the current increment.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1),
for Surrender language does not impose an undue burden on competition
because, with this proposal, all Participants will be able to submit an
Initiating Order

with a configurable percentage designation of ``Surrender'' up to 40%
or such lower percentage requested by the Participant. Today, the
System permits a Participant to have either a Surrender of 0% or 40%.
The Exchange believes that the proposed feature will provide all
Participants with more flexibility, similar to functionality currently
offered on ISE, GEMX and MRX at Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(iii).
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1) to
remove the following rule text, ``. . .forfeiting the priority and
trade allocation privileges which he is otherwise entitled to as per. .
.'', does not impose a burden on competition because the proposed text
defines ``Surrender'' as the percentage designation, which the Exchange
believes more accurately defines ``Surrender''.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the second sentence of Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(A)(1) to instead provide, ``If zero (0%) is specified,
the Initiating Order will only trade if there is not enough interest
available to fully execute the PRISM Order at prices which are equal to
or improve upon the stop price,'' does not impose a burden on
competition. The proposed text makes clear that if no percentage were
elected for Surrender (0%) then the Initiating Order will only trade if
there is not enough interest available to fully execute the PRISM Order
at prices which are equal to or improve upon the stop price.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(2) to
add ``price'' as a detail, which is specified today for a PRISM Auction
Notification or ``PAN,'' does not impose a burden on competition
because adding ``price'' to a PAN will be greater transparency with
respect to the PRISM and could encourage more competition in PRISM and
greater opportunity for potential price improvement in PRISM.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(7) to
conform the behavior of PAN responses to ISE, GEMX and MRX System
behavior \83\ does not impose a burden on competition. As noted above,
the Exchange is amending the System to accept oversized responses.
These responses will no longer cancel back, rather, PRISM will cap the
response at the size of the Initiating Order for purposes of allocation
for all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(8) and
(9) to replace the words ``immediately cancelled'' with ``rejected'' is
a non-substantive technical amendment.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(E)(2)(a)
to provide the Initiating Participant with a priority allocation based
on the initial size of the Initiating Order after Public Customer
interest has been satisfied does not impose a burden on competition.
With this proposed amendment, all Participants would be allocated based
on the initial size of the Initiating Order after Public Customer
interest has been satisfied. The Exchange's proposal is similar to ISE,
GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(3).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 13(d)(3), provides,
``In the case where the Counter-Side Order is at the same price as
Professional Interest in (d)(2), the Counter-Side order will be
allocated the greater of one (1) contract or forty percent (40%) of
the initial size of the Agency Order before Professional Interest is
executed. Upon entry of Counter-Side orders, Members can elect to
automatically match the price and size of orders, quotes and
responses received during the exposure period up to a specified
limit price or without specifying a limit price. In this case, the
Counter-Side order will be allocated its full size at each price
point, or at each price point within its limit price if a limit is
specified, until a price point is reached where the balance of the
order can be fully executed. At such price point, the Counter-Side
order shall be allocated the greater of one contract or forty
percent (40%) of the original size of the Agency Order, but only
after Priority Customer Interest at such price point are executed in
full. Thereafter, all Professional Interest at the price point will
participate in the execution of the Agency Order based upon the
percentage of the total number of contracts available at the price
that is represented by the size of the Professional Interest. An
election to automatically match better prices cannot be cancelled or
altered during the exposure period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend rounding, within Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(G), does not impose a burden on competition. The
rounding methodology will be uniformly applied when allocating PRISM
Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(H) to
remove the phrase ``then-existing'' and instead note ``at time of
execution'' to describe the NBBO does not impose a burden on
competition. The Exchange is not amending the current operation of the
System. The Exchange will uniformly check if the PAN responses crossed
the NBBO at the time of execution.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I) does
not impose an undue burden on competition. Without the word
``execution'' in this sentence, a comparison of the ``price of the
PRISM auction'' does not clearly differentiate the price in question as
the execution price of the PRISM Auction or the original stop price of
the PRISM Order. Without this clear differentiation, Options 3, Section
13(ii)(I) can be interpreted to describe scenarios that cannot happen.
The Exchange's proposed addition of the word ``execution'' in the first
sentence of Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I) reflects current System
handling. The execution price of the PRISM Auction is utilized to
compare to the price of an order on the limit Order Book. Adding the
word ``execution'' makes clear to Participants that the initial PRISM
stop price is not utilized to compare the same side of the market
transactions. While ``or better'' is not clearly specified, it is the
case today and its inclusion is meant to capture cases where PAN
responses provide price improvement for the PRISM Order at prices that
are crossed with the same side interest mentioned above. The proposed
wording is intended to provide greater clarity to Participants for
System handling with respect to same side of the market executions
against the Order Book. The proposed amendments reflect current System
handling are would not result in changes to the System. The remaining
amendments are technical and non-substantive.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13(ii)(K) to
add introductory text which defines a PRISM ISO does not impose a
burden on competition. Phlx similarly describes a PIXL ISO in its rule
text at Options 3, Section 13(b)(11).\85\ This text does not amend the
current System functionality, rather it adds context to the current
PRISM rule in describing a PRISM ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Phlx Options 3, Section 13(b)(11) states, ``PIXL ISO Order.
A PIXL ISO order (PIXL ISO) is the transmission of two orders for
crossing pursuant to this Rule without regard for better priced
Protected Bids/Offers (as defined in Options 5, Section 1) because
the member transmitting the PIXL ISO to the Exchange has,
simultaneously with the routing of the PIXL ISO, routed one or more
ISOs, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of
any Protected Bid/Offer that is superior to the starting PIXL
Auction price and has swept all interest in the Exchange's book
priced better than the proposed Auction starting price. Any
execution(s) resulting from such sweeps shall accrue to the PIXL
Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to correct Options 3, Section 13(ii)(K) to
add ``on the contra-side of the PRISM Order'' does not impose a burden
on competition because this rule text clearly describes the current
System operation. The Exchange provides that ``on the contra-side of
the PRISM Order'' to distinguish the contra-side from the same side of
the order, which receives different treatment in allocation. This
proposed amendment is intended to clarify the current System operation,
not amend the System.

    Finally, the Exchange's proposal to renumber Options 3, Section
13(vi) to ``(v)'' is technical and non-substantive.
Options 3, Section 23
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 23, Data Feeds
and Trade Information, to update its descriptions of the BX Depth of
Market (BX Depth) and BX Top of Market (BX Top) data feeds does not
impose an undue burden on competition because the updated descriptions
will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's rules.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \86\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \87\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2020-017 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-BX-2020-017. 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 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-BX-2020-017 and should be submitted on
or before August 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\88\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17355 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48370-48372]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31214; Amdt. No. 3818]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 25, 2018. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA

Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/
Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large
number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special
format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore-- (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ;
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 7, 2018.
Rick Domingo
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AIRAC date              State              City               Airport         FDC No.      FDC date                     Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-Oct-18...............  GA              Greensboro.........  Greene County Rgnl       8/2255      8/21/18  This NOTAM, published in TL 18-21, is
                                                                                hereby rescinded in its entirety.
11-Oct-18...............  OR              Redmond............  Roberts Field.....       8/7158      8/21/18  This NOTAM, published in TL 18-21, is
                                                                                hereby rescinded in its entirety.
11-Oct-18...............  OK              Guymon.............  Guymon Muni.......       8/8036      8/21/18  This NOTAM, published in TL 18-21, is
                                                                                hereby rescinded in its entirety.
11-Oct-18...............  RI              Block Island.......  Block Island State       8/1641      8/31/18  VOR/DME RWY 10, Amdt 5C.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2663      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1D.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2664      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1D.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2665      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1E.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.

11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2666      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1D.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2667      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2668      8/22/18  VOR-A, Orig-C.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/2671      8/22/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 26A.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  LA              Baton Rouge........  Baton Rouge              8/2672      8/23/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2.
                                                                Metropolitan,
                                                                Ryan Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/3166      8/22/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Amdt 2D.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/3169      8/22/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Orig-D.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  AR              Little Rock........  Bill and Hillary         8/3170      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1C.
                                                                Clinton National/
                                                                Adams Field.
11-Oct-18...............  PA              Towanda............  Bradford County...       8/4682      8/22/18  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2.
11-Oct-18...............  NE              Seward.............  Seward Muni.......       8/5764      8/28/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig.
11-Oct-18...............  PA              State College......  University Park...       8/6359      8/29/18  VOR-B, Amdt 11.
11-Oct-18...............  PA              State College......  University Park...       8/6361      8/29/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 9B.
11-Oct-18...............  PA              State College......  University Park...       8/6363      8/29/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2.
11-Oct-18...............  PA              State College......  University Park...       8/6368      8/29/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1.
11-Oct-18...............  MN              Willmar............  Willmar Muni-John        8/7156      8/31/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Orig.
                                                                L Rice Field.
11-Oct-18...............  MN              Willmar............  Willmar Muni-John        8/7159      8/31/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A.
                                                                L Rice Field.
11-Oct-18...............  MN              Willmar............  Willmar Muni-John        8/7161      8/31/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A.
                                                                L Rice Field.
11-Oct-18...............  MN              Willmar............  Willmar Muni-John        8/7162      8/31/18  VOR RWY 31, Orig-A.
                                                                L Rice Field.
11-Oct-18...............  KS              Concordia..........  Blosser Muni......       8/7179      8/28/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A.
11-Oct-18...............  IA              Emmetsburg.........  Emmetsburg Muni...       8/7181      8/28/18  NDB RWY 31, Amdt 3A.
11-Oct-18...............  IA              Emmetsburg.........  Emmetsburg Muni...       8/7182      8/28/18  NDB RWY 13, Amdt 3A.
11-Oct-18...............  IA              Emmetsburg.........  Emmetsburg Muni...       8/7183      8/28/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A.
11-Oct-18...............  IA              Emmetsburg.........  Emmetsburg Muni...       8/7184      8/28/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A.
11-Oct-18...............  NJ              Manville...........  Central Jersey           8/7538      8/22/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1B.
                                                                Rgnl.
11-Oct-18...............  MI              Mount Pleasant.....  Mount Pleasant           8/7841      8/29/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A.
                                                                Muni.
11-Oct-18...............  VA              Norfolk............  Chesapeake Rgnl...       8/9780       8/9/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A.
11-Oct-18...............  VA              Norfolk............  Chesapeake Rgnl...       8/9800       8/9/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 1A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-20394 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33904-33905]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9964-82-OAR]

EPA's Intent To Disclose Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Contained in Vehicle Sales Data for Model Years 2015 to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) for Use in Modeling and Projecting
Energy Demand in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a written request from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) for historical model year sales data for year 2015
by manufacturer and nameplate. This requested data may contain
confidential business information (CBI). The EPA may disclose business
information to other Federal agencies that otherwise is not available
to the public if certain requirements are met. The EPA intends to share
certain information, detailed below, with EIA ten (10) days after
publication of this notice. The information requested has been used to
model and project energy demand in the light-duty vehicle sector and is
critical to EIA's efforts to project energy demand, fuel efficiency,
fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions for the transportation
sector. EIA has agreed to keep the data confidential and not disclose
it further.

DATES: The sales data will be disclosed to EIA on or after July 31,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Zaremski, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 734-214- 4053; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved
with the production and sale of motor vehicles. Regulated categories
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of potentially
                  Category                    NAICS \1\ Codes     SIC \2\ Codes          regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................     336111, 336112               3711  Light-duty vehicle and light-
                                                                                duty truck manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
disclosure.

II. EIA's Request for Model Year Sales Data for Year 2015

    In their June 23, 2017 request letter to EPA, EIA requested that
EPA provide to EIA historical model year sales data for year 2015 by
manufacturer and nameplate. As noted earlier in this document, EIA uses
this information to model and project energy demand in the light-duty
vehicle sector. Additionally, EIA noted that these data are critical to
EIA's continued efforts to project energy demand, fuel efficiency, fuel
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions for the transportation
sector. Previously, EIA had been unable to obtain official model year
sales data for 2015 due to the fact that it contained CBI. The specific
data they requested includes all the data fields currently available in
the Excel files provided on the fueleconomy.gov Web site (see the
Download Fuel Economy Data page at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml).
    Additionally, EIA requested the following data fields: model year
sales, tank size, track width, wheelbase, curb weight, horsepower,
interior volume, fleet (DP, IP, LT), and test weight. EIA indicated
that they are aware that this information is subject to claims of
confidential business information. EIA's letter states ``We will take
the necessary steps to ensure the data are secure and kept
confidential. EIA routinely works with sensitive data and has strong
data handling safeguards in place.''
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c), EPA may disclose business information
to another Federal agency if: (1) EPA receives a written request for
disclosure of the information from a duly authorized officer or
employee of the other agency; (2) the request sets forth the official
purpose for which the information is needed; (3) when the information
has been claimed as confidential or has been determined to be
confidential, the responsible EPA office provides notice to each
affected business of the type of information to be disclosed and to
whom it is to be disclosed, and such notice may be given by notice
published in the Federal Register at least 10 days prior to disclosure;
(4) EPA notifies the other agency of any unresolved business
confidentiality claim covering the information and of any determination
under this subpart that the information is entitled to confidential
treatment, and that further disclosure of the information may be a
violation of the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905; and

(5) the other agency agrees in writing that in accordance with the law,
it will not disclose further any information designated as
confidential.
    In the case at hand, all of the required elements of 40 CFR
2.209(c) have been met upon publication of this notice.

III. Impact on Vehicle Manufacturers

    Given that EIA is aware that the shared information is CBI or has
been claimed as CBI, and intends to take the necessary steps to ensure
that the data provided is kept secure and confidential, there is no
impact on vehicle manufacturers to the release of this data.

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2017-15377 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16899-16900]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85672; File No. SR-ISE-2019-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Pilot Period for the Exchange's Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program

April 17, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 10, 2019, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to a proposal [sic] to extend the pilot
period for the Exchange's nonstandard expirations pilot program,
currently set to expire on May 6, 2019.
    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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    ISE filed a proposed rule change for the listing and trading on the
Exchange, on a twelve month pilot basis, of p.m.-settled options on
broad-based indexes with nonstandard expirations dates.\5\ The pilot
program permits both Weekly Expirations and End of Month (``EOM'')
expirations similar to those of the a.m.-settled broad-based index
options, except that the exercise settlement value of the options
subject to the pilot are based on the index value derived from the
closing prices of component stocks. This pilot was subsequently
extended through May 6, 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82458 (January 8,
2018), 83 FR 1636 (January 12, 2018) (approving SR-ISE-2017-111)
(Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Nonstandard
Expirations Pilot Program).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85030 (February 1,
2019), 84 FR 2633 (February 7, 2019) (approving SR-ISE-2019-01)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supplementary Material .07(a) to ISE Rule 2009 provides that the
Exchange may open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based
index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of- the-month or days
that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations are subject
to all provisions of Exchange Rule 2009 and are treated the same as
options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of
the expiration month. Unlike the standard monthly options, however,
Weekly Expirations are p.m.-settled.
    Pursuant to Supplementary Material .07(b) to ISE Rule 2009(b) the
Exchange may open for trading End of Month (``EOM'') Expirations on any
broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on
the last trading day of the month. EOMs are subject to all provisions
of Rule 2009 and treated the same as options on the same underlying
index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However,
the EOMs are p.m.-settled.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Supplementary Material .07(c) to
ISE Rule 2009 so that the duration of the pilot program for these
nonstandard expirations will be through November 4, 2019. The Exchange
continues to have sufficient systems capacity to handle p.m.-settled
options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expirations dates and
has not encountered any issues or adverse market effects as a result of
listing them. Additionally, there is continued investor interest in
these products. The Exchange will make public on its website any data
and analysis it submits to the Commission under the pilot program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that its 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.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect investors
and the public interest by providing the Exchange, the Commission and
investors the benefit of additional time to analyze nonstandard
expiration options. By extending the pilot program, investors may
continue to benefit from a wider array of investment opportunities.
Additionally, both the Exchange and the Commission may continue to
monitor the potential for adverse market effects of p.m.-settlement on
the market, including the underlying cash equities market, at the
expiration of these options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Options with nonstandard
expirations would be available for trading to all market participants.

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

    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 \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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 pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
investors may continue to trade nonstandard expiration options listed
by the Exchange as part of the pilot program on an uninterrupted basis.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the pilot program. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2019-11 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-2019-11. 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 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-2019-11 and should be submitted on
or before May 14, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08105 Filed 4-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P