[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42575-42579]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17536]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75444; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To
Amend NYSE Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and
Modifiers

July 13, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On March 24, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 13, and related Exchange
rules, governing order types and modifiers. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015.\3\
On May 14, 2015, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change \4\ On May 27, 2015, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\

On July 10, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding
the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from interested persons and is
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74678 (April 8,
2015), 80 FR 20053 (``Notice''). Prior to filing this proposal, the
Exchange filed a similar proposal to amend Rule 13, and related
Exchange rules, governing order types and modifiers. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73703 (November 28, 2014), 79 FR 72039
(December 4, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-59). For that proposal, the
Commission extended the time period for action, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74051 (January 14, 2015), 80 FR 2983
(January 21, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2014-59), and for an almost identical
filing of NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove NYSE MKT's
proposal, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74298 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9770 (February 24, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95).
Prior to the conclusion of those proceedings for NYSE MKT's
proposal, both NYSE and NYSE MKT withdrew their respective
proposals. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74642 (April 3,
2015), 80 FR 19096 (April 9, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2014-59) and 74643
(April 3, 2015), 80 FR 19102 (April 9, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-95).
    \4\ The Exchange subsequently withdrew Partial Amendment No. 1
on May 20, 2015.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75048, 80 FR 31419
(June 2, 2015). The Commission designated July 13, 2015, as the date
by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \7\ For a description of the proposals contained within
Amendment No. 2, see infra Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, As Modified by Amendment No. 2

    On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled ``Enhancing Our Market Equity
Structure,'' Mary Jo White, Chair of the Commission, requested that the
equity exchanges conduct a comprehensive review of their order types
and how they operate in practice and, as part of this review, consider
appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order
types and how they interact with each other.\8\ Subsequent to the
Chair's speech, the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets
requested that the Exchange complete its review and submit any proposed
rule changes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Commission, Speech at the Sandler,
O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage Conference
(June 5, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312.
    \9\ See Letter from James Burns, Deputy Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, to Jeffrey
C. Sprecher, Chief Executive Officer, Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc., dated June 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 by re-grouping and re-
numbering existing order types and order modifiers. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 13 to revise the definitions of certain order
types and modifiers in both substantive and non-substantive ways and to
add text stating that, unless otherwise specified in either Rules 13,
70 (applicable to Exchange Floor brokers), or 104 (applicable to
Exchange Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'')), orders and modifiers
listed in Rule 13 are available for all Exchange member organizations.
The Exchange represents that these revisions are not intended to
reflect changes to the functionality of any order type or modifier, but
rather to clarify Rule 13 to make it easier to navigate.\10\ In
addition, the Exchange proposes to amend related Exchange rules to
relocate rule text contained in current Rule 13; further explain the
functionality of certain Floor broker and DMM interest; further explain
the operation of non-displayed interest entered into the Exchange's
systems; add, update, or revise cross references; and make other non-
substantive technical amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, Rule 13 would be reorganized into six
categories: (1) Primary Order Types; (2) Time in Force Modifiers; (3)
Auction-Only Orders; (4) Orders with Instructions Not to Display All or
a Portion of the Order; (5) Orders with Instructions Not to Route; and
(6) Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers. Currently, Rule 13
lists order types and modifiers alphabetically and does not categorize
order types and modifiers based on characteristic or function.

A. Primary Order Types

    Proposed section (a) of Rule 13 would set forth two primary order
types--Market Orders and Limit Orders--and specify which orders are
eligible for automatic executions. The Exchange proposes to delete the
current definition of ``Auto Ex Order'' and proposes that all orders
entered electronically will be eligible for automatic execution.
Interest represented manually by a floor broker, however, would not be
eligible for automatic execution.
    The Exchange is not changing the definition of ``Market Order'' and
would replace the current term ``Display Book'' with the proposed term
``Exchange systems.'' \11\ With respect to Limit Orders, current Rule
13 defines a ``marketable Limit Order'' as ``an order on the Exchange
that can be immediately executed; that is, an order to buy priced at or
above the Exchange best offer or an order to sell price at or below the
Exchange best bid.'' In the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes
to add a definition for a Limit Order as an order to buy or sell a
stated amount of a security at a specified price or better. The
definition of a ``marketable Limit Order'' would be revised non-
substantively so that a marketable Limit Order would be defined as ``a
Limit Order to buy (sell) at or above (below) the Exchange best offer
(bid) for the security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange proposes to replace the term ``Display Book''
with ``Exchange systems,'' when the term refers to Exchange systems
that receive and execute orders, and with ``Exchange book'' when the
term refers to the interest that has been entered and ranked in
Exchange systems, as applicable throughout the proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Time in Force Modifiers

    Proposed section (b) of Rule 13 would set forth three Time in Force
modifiers for orders: (1) Day; (2) Good til Cancelled (``GTC'') or
Open; and (3) Immediate or Cancel (``IOC''). For Day modifiers, the
Exchange proposes to allow only Limit Orders to be designated as Day
orders. Currently, any order could be designated as a Day order. For
the GTC or Open modifier, the Exchange is proposing to allow only Limit
Orders to be designated with the GTC or Open modifier. Currently, any
order could be a GTC or Open order.
    With respect to IOC modifiers, the Exchange currently has three
different modifiers: (1) Regulation NMS-compliant IOC; (2) NYSE IOC;
and (3) IOC-MTS (minimum trade size). The Exchange is proposing to make
non-substantive changes to the definitions of all three IOC
modifiers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Throughout the proposed rule text, the Exchange proposes to
capitalize terms, including, but not limited to, Limit Order and
Market Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Auction-Only Orders

    Proposed section (c) of Rule 13 would set forth five Auction-Only
Orders: (1) Closing Offset (``CO'') Orders; (2) Limit-on-Close
(``LOC'') Orders; (3) Limit-on-Open (``LOO'') Orders; (4) Market-on
Close (``MOC'') Orders; and (5) Market-on-Open (``MOO'') Orders. The
Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive changes to these
definitions.

D. Non-Displayable Orders (All or a Portion of the Order)

    Proposed section (d) of Rule 13 contains orders that are partially
or fully undisplayed. There are two types of non-displayable orders:
(1) Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders'') and (2) Reserve
Orders. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the
definition of MPL Orders.
    With respect to Reserve Orders, the Exchange proposes to make non-
substantive changes to the definition. The Exchange also proposes to
add new rule text to state that a Minimum Display Reserve Order, which
is a Limit Order that has a portion of the interest displayed when the
order is or becomes the Exchange best bid or offer (``Exchange BBO'')
and a portion not displayed (the reserve interest), would participate
in both automatic and manual executions. The Exchange also proposes to
add new rule text to state that a Non-Displayed Reserve Order, which is
a Limit Order that is not displayed, would not participate in manual
executions. The Exchange represents that these changes would reflect
how those orders currently operate on the Exchange.\13\ Moreover, the
Exchange proposes to change the circumstances in which the reserve
interest of a Reserve Order would be

available for execution. Currently, the Exchange's rule text specifies
that reserve interest of a Non-Displayed Reserve Order is available for
execution only after all displayed interest at the price has been
executed. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text to specify that
reserve interest of all Reserve Orders is available for execution only
after all displayed interest at the price has been executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Do Not Route Orders

    Proposed section (e) of Rule 13 would set forth order modifiers and
order types that would not be routed: (1) The Add Liquidity Only
(``ALO'') modifier; (2) Do Not Ship (``DNS'') orders; and (3)
Intermarket Sweep (``ISO'') orders. For the ALO modifier, the Exchange
proposes to make non-substantive changes and to update cross
references. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to specify
that Limit Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in re-openings,
but that the ALO designation would be ignored. This proposed change
would expand the text of current Rule 13, which states that Limit
Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in the Exchange's open or
close, but that the ALO designation would be ignored. The Exchange is
also proposing to make non-substantive changes to the DNS order and ISO
definitions.

F. Other Modifiers

    Proposed section (f) of Rule 13 would include the Exchange's other
order instructions and modifiers: (1) Do Not Reduce (``DNR'') modifier;
(2) Do Not Increase (``DNI'') modifier; (3) Pegging interest; (4)
Retail modifier; (5) Self-Trade Prevention (``STP'') modifier; (6) Sell
``Plus''--Buy ``Minus'' instruction; and (7) Stop order. The Exchange
proposes to make non-substantive changes to the DNR and DNI modifiers.
    With respect to Pegging interest, the Exchange proposes to specify
that Pegging interest must be a Floor broker agency interest file (``e-
Quote'') or a discretionary e-Quote (``d-Quote'') and proposes to
delete the reference to the term ``Primary Pegging Interest'' in
proposed Rule 13(f)(3)(B) because the Exchange represents that it only
has one form of Pegging interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the Retail
modifier, STP modifier, and the Sell ``Plus''--Buy ``Minus''
instruction definitions. With respect to the STP modifier, the Exchange
proposes to add rule text specifying that the STP modifier is not
available for DMM interest, and with respect to Stop orders, the
Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes and to replace the
term ``Exchange's automated order routing system'' with ``Exchange
systems.''

G. Other Proposed Changes

    The Exchange proposes to move the definition of ``Routing Broker''
to Rule 17(c) because the Exchange states that Rule 17(c) governs the
operations of Routing Brokers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of Not Held
orders and relocate that definition to Supplementary Material .20 to
Rule 13 because the Exchange states that Supplementary material .20 of
Rule 13 reflects the obligations that members have in handling customer
orders and Not Held instructions are instructions from a customer to a
member or member organization regarding the handling of an order.\16\
Rule 13 currently defines a Not Held order as a market or limited price
order marked ``not held,'' ``disregard tape,'' ``take time,'' ``buy or
sell on print,'' or which bears any such qualifying notation. Under the
proposed rule change, a Not Held order would refer to an unpriced,
discretionary order voluntarily categorized as such by the customer and
with respect to which the customer has granted the member or member
organization price and time discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes several amendments to Rule 70, which governs
the execution of Exchange Floor Broker interest. The Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 70(a)(i) to (1) delete current rule text indicating that
Floor Brokers can only enter e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO
because, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange explains that Floor brokers
may use e-Quotes to enter non-displayed orders, such as Non-Display
Reserve e-Quotes or MPL Orders, priced between the Exchange BBO, and
(2) add rule text stating that e-Quotes would not include unelected
Stop Orders, Market Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI
modifiers. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule
70.25(a)(ii) explaining that discretionary instructions may include
instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or closing
transaction only. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c) to
clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is no longer
available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii) currently provides that a
Floor broker may designate a maximum size of contra-side volume with
which it is willing to trade using discretionary pricing instructions.
Because this functionality is not available, the Exchange proposes to
delete references to the maximum discretionary size parameter from
Rules 70.25(c)(ii) and (c)(v). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv) to clarify that the circumstances under which
the Exchange would consider interest displayed by other market centers
at the price at which a d-Quote may trade are not limited to
determining when a d-Quote's minimum or maximum size range is met.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause ``when
determining if the d-Quote's minimum and/or maximum size range is
met.'' The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive changes to
Rules 70(a)(i) and 70(b)(i) by replacing the term ``Display Book'' with
the term ``Exchange systems,'' and in Rule 70(f), the Exchange proposes
to update cross references.
    The Exchange proposes several amendments to amend Rule 72, which
governs the priority of bids and offers and allocation of executions on
the Exchange. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i) to
(1) replace the term ``reserve interest'' with the term ``non-
displayable interest'' so that the rule sets forth that all non-
displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve interest
and MPL Orders, trades on parity in accordance with the order
allocation provisions of Rule 72 and (2) change the phrase ``the
displayed bid (offer)'' to ``displayable bids (offers)'' and change the
phrase ``displayed volume'' to ``displayable volume'' to specify that
an automatically executing order will trade first with displayable bids
(offers) and, if there is insufficient displayable volume to fill the
order, will trade next with non-displayable interest. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x) to add MPL Orders to the orders
identified as being eligible to trade at price points between the
Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13.
    The Exchange proposes two amendments to Rule 104, which governs the
dealings and responsibilities of DMMs. First, the Exchange proposes to
add text to Rule 104(b)(ii) explaining that the Exchange's systems will
prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest.
Specifically, proposed Rule 104(b)(ii) would now provide that if an
incoming DMM interest would trade with resting DMM interest only, the
incoming DMM interest would be cancelled, and if the incoming DMM
interest would trade with interest other than DMM interest,

the resting DMM interest would be cancelled. Furthermore, the Exchange
proposes to add new Rule 104(b)(vi) to specify that DMMs may not enter
the following orders and modifiers: (1) Market Orders; (2) GTC
modifiers; (3) MOO orders; (4) CO orders; (5) MOC orders; (6) LOC
orders; (7) DNR modifiers; (8) DNI modifiers; (9) Sell ``Plus''--Buy
``Minus'' instructions; and (10) Stop orders.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000, which governs
automatic executions, by adding cross references to other Exchange
rules applicable to automatic executions in Rule 1000(a).

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\17\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it continually assesses its rules
governing order types \19\ and that this proposal is part of that
continued effort to review and clarify its rules governing order
types.\20\ In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange asserts
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because
it would, among other things, clarify existing functionality of the
Exchange's order types and ensure that Exchange members, regulators,
and the public can both more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook
and better understand the order types available for trading on the
Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20053.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20053-54.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 20056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would restructure and reorganize Rule 13 so
that order types with similar functionality are grouped together by
subsection. The Commission also notes that the proposal contains
several revisions to the Exchange's current rule text to clarify the
descriptions of how certain orders, modifiers, and the ``not held''
instruction function and to specify which member organizations can and
cannot enter certain order types. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change should provide greater specificity, clarity, and
transparency with respect to the order type and modifier
functionalities available on the Exchange, as well as the Exchange's
methodology for handling certain order types, when compared to the
existing rule text today. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the
proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
to 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-NYSE-2015-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of this filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-15 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2015.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the Federal
Register. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes to add to Rule 13
text that: (1) States that, unless otherwise specified in either Rules
13, 70, or 104, orders and modifiers listed in Rule 13 are available
for all Exchange member organizations; and (2) specifies that the STP
modifier is not available for DMM interest. The Exchange also proposes
to delete a proposed change to the definition of MPL Orders that would
have required the Exchange's systems to: (1) Reject an MPL Order on
entry if it has a Minimum Triggering Volume larger than the size of the
order and (2) to reject a request to partially cancel a resting MPL
Order when the partial cancellation would result in a Minimum
Triggering Volume that is larger than the size of the order.
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes several non-substantive technical
amendments to the filing so that the proposed text in Rules 13(a)(1)
(definition of Market Order) and 13(d)(1)(A) (definition of MPL Order),
and the current Rule 13 text marked for deletion under the present
alphabetically listed format, accurately reflect the proposed rule
changes to the current rule text and the proposed rule text that is not
being changed from the current rule text.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70 to: (1) Delete current
rule text in Rule 70(a)(i) indicating that Floor Brokers can only enter
e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO; (2) add text to Rule 70(a)(i)
stating that e-Quotes shall not include unelected Stop orders, Market
Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI modifiers; (3) add
text to Rule 70.25(a)(ii) explaining that discretionary instructions
may include instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or
closing transaction only; (4) make non-substantive changes to Rules
70(a)(i) and 70(b)(i) by replacing the term ``Display Book'' with the
term ``Exchange systems;'' and (5) update cross references in Rule
70(f).
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i) to: (1) Set forth that
all non-displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve
interest and MPL Orders, trades on parity; and (2) to change the phrase
``the displayed bid (offer)'' to ``displayable bids (offers)'' and
change the phrase ``displayed volume'' to ``displayable volume.'' The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x) to add MPL Orders to the
orders identified as being eligible to trade at price points between
the Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13.
    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rule 104(b)(ii)
explaining that the Exchange's systems will prevent incoming DMM
interest from trading with resting DMM interest. Furthermore, the
Exchange proposes to add new Rule 104(b)(vi) to specify that DMMs may
not enter the following orders and modifiers: (1) Market Orders; (2)
GTC modifiers; (3) MOO orders; (4) CO orders; (5) MOC orders; (6) LOC
orders; (7) DNR modifiers; (8) DNI modifiers; (9) Sell ``Plus''--Buy
``Minus'' instructions; and (10) Stop orders.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(a) to provide
cross references to other Exchange rules applicable to automatic
executions.
    The Commission believes that the revisions proposed in Amendment
No. 2 do not raise any novel regulatory issues. The Commission further
believes that the proposed revisions to the rule text set forth in
Amendment No. 2 do not represent any significant changes to the current
functionality of the Exchange's order types and modifiers. Rather,
these proposed rule text changes primarily help clarify and better
explain how the Exchange's order types and modifiers currently operate
and interact. For instance, the Commission believes that the Exchange's
proposal to add text at the beginning of Rule 13 stating that, unless
otherwise specified in Rules 13, 70, or 104, orders and modifiers are
available for all member organizations, coupled with the proposed
addition of subparagraph (b)(vi) to Rule 104 that specifically
enumerates which orders and modifiers a DMM may not enter into the
Exchange's systems, should help member organizations better understand
which orders and modifiers they can and cannot enter into the
Exchange's systems. Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment No.
2 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\22\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (NYSE-2015-15), as modified by
Amendment No. 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17536 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32392-32394]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14663]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81094; File No. SR-ISE-2017-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the SPY
Pilot Program

July 7, 2017.

    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 July 5, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to mend its rules to extend the pilot program
that eliminated position and exercise limits for physically-settled
options on the SPDR S&P ETF Trust (``SPY'') (``SPY Pilot Program'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01 to ISE
Rule 412 and Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule 414 to extend the
duration of the SPY Pilot Program through July 12, 2018. This filing
does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In
proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program the Exchange reaffirms its
consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal
of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the liquidity of the option and
the underlying security, (2) the market capitalization of the
underlying security and the related index, (3) the reporting of large
positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (4) financial
requirements imposed by ISE and the Commission.
    With this proposal, the Exchange submits the SPY report to the
Commission, which report reflects, during the time period from May 2016
through May 2017, the trading of standardized SPY options with no
position limits consistent with option exchange provisions.\3\ The
report was prepared in the manner specified in the Exchange's prior
rule filing extending the SPY Pilot Program.\4\ The Exchange notes that
it is unaware of any problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does
not foresee any as a result of the proposed extension. The proposed
extension will allow the Exchange and the Commission to further
evaluate the SPY Pilot Program and the effect it has on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The report is attached as Exhibit 3 [sic].
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78295 (July 18,
2016), 81 FR 46728 (July 12, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that, should the Exchange propose to extend
the pilot program, adopt on a permanent basis the pilot program or
terminate the pilot program, it will submit a new pilot report at least
thirty (30) days before the end of the extended SPY Pilot Program,
which will cover the extended pilot period. The Pilot Report will
detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect
to positions established as a result of the elimination of position
limits in SPY. In addition, the Pilot Report will note whether any
problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other
information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY
Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility
in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration.
In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements
such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make
available to Commission staff data elements relating to the
effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program.
    Conditional on the findings in the SPY Pilot Report, the Exchange
will file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program,
adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If
the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis
by the expiration of the Extended Pilot, the position limits for SPY
options would revert to limits in effect prior to the commencement of
the SPY Pilot Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be
beneficial to market participants, including market makers,
institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to
establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and
needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products
should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory
arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and
SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits
is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable
principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that
the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase
market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is
being proposed as a competitive response to similar filings that the
Exchange expects to be filed by other options exchanges. The Exchange
believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform
position limits for a multiply listed options class.

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) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \8\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ 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
the proposal may

become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes that
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the SPY Pilot
Program to continue without interruption. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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-ISE-2017-72 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-72. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-72, and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14663 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Notice of Rulemaking Hearing

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Division of Air Pollution Control

There will be a public hearing before the Technical Secretary of the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board to consider the promulgation of
amendments to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations and the
State Implementation Plan pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, Section
68-201-105.  The comments received at these hearings will be presented
to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board for their consideration in
regards to the proposed regulatory amendment.  The hearing will be
conducted in the manner prescribed by the Uniform Administrative
Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 4-5-201 et. seq. and
will take place in the 17th Floor Conference Room A of the L & C Tower ,
located at 401 Church Street, , Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531, at 1:00
p.m. CST on Monday, March 20, 2006.  Anyone desiring to make oral
comments at this public hearing is requested to prepare a written copy
of their comments to be submitted to the hearing officer at the public
hearing.

Written comments not submitted at the public hearing will be included in
the hearing record only if received by the close of business on Monday,
March 20, 2006, at the following address: Technical Secretary, Tennessee
Air Pollution Control Board, 9th Floor, L & C Annex, 401 Church Street,
Nashville, TN  37243-1531.

Any individuals with disabilities who wish to participate in these
proceedings or to review these filings should contact the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation to discuss any auxiliary aids
or services needed to facilitate such participation. Such initial
contact may be in person, by writing, telephone, or other means, and
should be made no less than ten (10) days prior to March 20, 2006, or
the date such party intends to review such filings, to allow time to
provide such aid or service. Contact Mr. John Rae White, Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation ADA Coordinator, 12th Floor,
401 Church Street, Nashville TN 37243,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hearing impaired
callers may use the Tennessee Relay Service (1-800-848-0298).

If you have any questions about the origination of this rule change, you
may contact Lacey Hardin at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Copies of documents
concerning this matter are available for review at the office of the
technical secretary and at certain public depositories. For information
about reviewing these documents, please contact Ms. Lacey Hardin or Mr.
Malcolm Butler, 9th Floor, L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville, TN
 37243-1531, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.  For complete copies of the text
of the notice, please contact Lida Galbreath, Department of Environment
and Conservation, 9th Floor, L & C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
TN 37243.

Summary of Proposed Changes

Chapter 1200-3-9

Construction and Operating Permits

Amendments

Rule 1200-3-9-.01 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS of the Tennessee Air Pollution
Control Regulations is proposed to be amended by modifying the
definition of “baseline actual emissions” to allow the use of
different consecutive twenty-four (24) month periods for different
pollutants when determining the baseline actual emissions if certain
requirements are met.  The federal New Source Review regulations allow
this to be done; Tennessee had elected to restrict the definition so
that a single consecutive twenty-four (24) month period was required,
but information was presented.

Substance of Proposed Rules

Chapter 1200-3-9

Construction and Operating Permits

Amendments

Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits is amended in the
following four (4) respects:

1.	Item (III) of subpart (i) of part 45. of subparagraph (b) of
paragraph (4) of rule 1200-3-9-.01 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS  is amended by
substituting for the present item a different item so that, as amended,
the resulting item shall read:

For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple
emissions units, one consecutive 24-month period must be used to
determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions units being
changed.  However, the Technical Secretary is authorized to allow the
use of multiple, pollutant specific 24-month baselines in determining
the magnitude of a significant net emissions increase and the
applicability of major new source review requirements if all of the
following conditions are met:

I.	Construction of a new source or modification would become subject to
major new source review if a single 2-year baseline is used for all
pollutants.

II.	One or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in
amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than
operations at a lower production or utilization rate.  Qualifying
examples include, but are not limited to, the voluntary use of:

A.	a cleaner fuel than otherwise permitted in a fuel burning operation
(e.g., natural gas instead of coal in a multi-fuel boiler),

B.	a coating with a lower VOC content than otherwise permitted in a
coating operation,

C.	a voluntary improvement in the control efficiency of an air pollution
control device or the voluntary addition of a control device where one
did not exist before, and

D.	alternate production methods, raw materials, or products that result
in lower emissions of one or more pollutants.

III.	Use of alternate 2-year baselines for the pollutants described in
2. above would result in the construction of the new source or
modification not being subject to major new source review.

IV.	The use of the multiple baselines is not prohibited by any
applicable provision of the USEPA’s new source review regulations.

The burden for demonstrating that these conditions are met is upon the
permit applicant.  The demonstration and the Technical Secretary’s
approval will be made a part of the permit record.

2.	Item (IV) of subpart (ii) of part 45. of subparagraph ((b) of
paragraph (4) of rule 1200-3-9-.01 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS  is amended by
substituting for the present item a different item so that, as amended,
the resulting item shall read:

For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple
emissions units, one consecutive 24-month period must be used to
determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions units being
changed.  However, the Technical Secretary is authorized to allow the
use of multiple, pollutant specific 24-month baselines in determining
the magnitude of a significant net emissions increase and the
applicability of major new source review requirements if all of the
following conditions are met:

I.	Construction of a new source or modification would become subject to
major new source review if a single 2-year baseline is used for all
pollutants.

II.	One or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in
amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than
operations at a lower production or utilization rate.  Qualifying
examples include, but are not limited to, the voluntary use of:

A.	a cleaner fuel than otherwise permitted in a fuel burning operation
(e.g., natural gas instead of coal in a multi-fuel boiler),

B.	a coating with a lower VOC content than otherwise permitted in a
coating operation,

C.	a voluntary improvement in the control efficiency of an air pollution
control device or the voluntary addition of a control device where one
did not exist before, and

D.	alternate production methods, raw materials, or products that result
in lower emissions of one or more pollutants.

III.	Use of alternate 2-year baselines for the pollutants described in
2. above would result in the construction of the new source or
modification not being subject to major new source review.

IV.	The use of the multiple baselines is not prohibited by any
applicable provision of the USEPA’s new source review regulations.

The burden for demonstrating that these conditions are met is upon the
permit applicant.  The demonstration and the Technical Secretary’s
approval will be made a part of the permit record.

3.	Subitem III. of item (I) of subpart (xlvii) of part 1. of
subparagraph (b) of paragraph (5) of rule  1200-3-9-.01 CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS  is amended by substituting for the present subitem a different
subitem so that, as amended, the resulting subitem shall read:

III.	For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple
emissions units, one consecutive 24-month period must be used to
determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions units being
changed.  However, the Technical Secretary is authorized to allow the
use of multiple, pollutant specific 24-month baselines in determining
the magnitude of a significant net emissions increase and the
applicability of major new source review requirements if all of the
following conditions are met:

A.	Construction of a new source or modification would become subject to
major new source review if a single 2-year baseline is used for all
pollutants.

B.	One or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in
amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than
operations at a lower production or utilization rate.  Qualifying
examples include, but are not limited to, the voluntary use of:

(A)	a cleaner fuel than otherwise permitted in a fuel burning operation
(e.g., natural gas instead of coal in a multi-fuel boiler),

(B)	a coating with a lower VOC content than otherwise permitted in a
coating operation,

(C)	a voluntary improvement in the control efficiency of an air
pollution control device or the voluntary addition of a control device
where one did not exist before, and

(D)	alternate production methods, raw materials, or products that result
in lower emissions of one or more pollutants.

C.	Use of alternate 2-year baselines for the pollutants described in 2.
above would result in the construction of the new source or modification
not being subject to major new source review.

D.	The use of the multiple baselines is not prohibited by any applicable
provision of the USEPA’s new source review regulations.

The burden for demonstrating that these conditions are met is upon the
permit applicant.  The demonstration and the Technical Secretary’s
approval will be made a part of the permit record.

4.	Subitem IV. of item  (II) of subpart (xlvii) of part 1. of
subparagraph (b) of paragraph (5) of rule  1200-3-9-.01 CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS  is amended by substituting for the present subitem a different
subitem so that, as amended, the resulting subitem shall read:

IV.	For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple
emissions units, one consecutive 24-month period must be used to
determine the baseline actual emissions for the emissions units being
changed.  However, the Technical Secretary is authorized to allow the
use of multiple, pollutant specific 24-month baselines in determining
the magnitude of a significant net emissions increase and the
applicability of major new source review requirements if all of the
following conditions are met:

A.	Construction of a new source or modification would become subject to
major new source review if a single 2-year baseline is used for all
pollutants.

B.	One or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in
amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than
operations at a lower production or utilization rate.  Qualifying
examples include, but are not limited to, the voluntary use of:

(A)	a cleaner fuel than otherwise permitted in a fuel burning operation
(e.g., natural gas instead of coal in a multi-fuel boiler),

(B)	a coating with a lower VOC content than otherwise permitted in a
coating operation,

(C)	a voluntary improvement in the control efficiency of an air
pollution control device or the voluntary addition of a control device
where one did not exist before, and

(D)	alternate production methods, raw materials, or products that result
in lower emissions of one or more pollutants.

C.	Use of alternate 2-year baselines for the pollutants described in 2.
above would result in the construction of the new source or modification
not being subject to major new source review.

D.	The use of the multiple baselines is not prohibited by any applicable
provision of the USEPA’s new source review regulations.

The burden for demonstrating that these conditions are met is upon the
permit applicant.  The demonstration and the Technical Secretary’s
approval will be made a part of the permit record.

Authority:  T.C.A. ((68-201-105 and 4-5-202 et. seq.  Administrative
History:  Original rule certified June 4, 1974.  Amended effective
February 9, 1977.  Amended April 12, 1978.  Amended June 16, 1978.
Amended March 21, 1979.  Amended June 21, 1979.  Amended November 16,
1979.  Emergency rule effective June 3, 1981 through October 1, 1981.
Revised effective July 31, 1981.  Amended effective October 2, 1981.
Amended effective January 22, 1982.  Amended effective March 2, 1983.
Amended effective August 22, 1983.  Amended effective November 6, 1988.
Amendment filed April 19, 1990; effective June 2, 1990.  Amendment filed
May 17, 1990; effective July 1, 1990.  Amendment filed May 12, 1993;
effective June 26, 1993.  Amendment filed September 7, 1993; effective
November 21, 1993.  Amendment filed April 18, 1994; effective July 2,
1994.  Amendment filed June 2, 1994; effective August 15, 1994.
Amendment filed March 29, 1995; effective June 14, 1995.  Amendment
filed June 3, 1996; effective August 14, 1996.  Amendment filed June 7,
1996, effective August 18, 1996.  Amendment filed October 14, 1996;
effective December 28, 1996.  Amendment filed November 12, 1998;
effective January 26, 1999.  Amendment filed June 8, 1999; effective
August 22, 1999.

Legal Contact and/or party who will approve final copy for publication:

								Ms. Lacey Hardin

								Division of Air Pollution Control

								9th Floor L & C Annex

								401 Church Street

								Nashville, TN 37243-1531

<PHONE_NUMBER>

Contact for disk acquisition:

															Mr. Malcolm H. Butler

															Division of Air Pollution Control

															9th Floor L & C Annex

															401 Church Street

															Nashville, TN 37243-1531

<PHONE_NUMBER>

I certify that this is an accurate and complete representation of the
intent and scope of rulemaking proposed by the Tennessee Division of Air
Pollution Control.

														___________________________________

														Barry R. Stephens

Director

														Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the  _____ day of
                          , 2006.

														___________________________________

														Notary Public

My commission expires on the  _____ day of   _______________________,
__________.

This notice of rulemaking set out herein was properly filed in the
Department of State on the  _____ day of _______________, 2006.

														___________________________________

														Riley C. Darnell

														Secretary of State

												By:	___________________________________

d:\mb\rulefilingAPC\9-01c7

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  \* MERGEFORMAT  6  pages


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69677-69679]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA-2014-0387; FMCSA-2018-0138; FMCSA-2018-0139; FMCSA-2019-0109;
FMCSA-2021-0014; FMCSA-2021-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 16
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below. Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0387, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-
0138, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0139, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0109, Docket
No. FMCSA-2021-0014, or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0015 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number (FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-2018-0138, FMCSA-2018-
0139, FMCSA-2019-0109, FMCSA-2021-0014, or FMCSA-2021-0015) in the
keyword box and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted
(Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed, and click on the
``Comment'' button. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0387, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0138, Docket
No. FMCSA-2018-0139, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0109, Docket No. FMCSA-2021-
0014, or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0015), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number (FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-2018-0138, FMCSA-2018-0139,
FMCSA-2019-0109, FMCSA-2021-0014, or FMCSA-2021-0015) in the keyword
box and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. FMCSA will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-2018-0138, FMCSA-2018-0139, FMCSA-2019-
0109, FMCSA-2021-0014, or FMCSA-2021-0015) in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the name of
the submitter.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971),
respectively).
    The 16 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 16
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for

obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 16 drivers in
this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for
commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October
and are discussed below. As of October 1, 2023, and in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following five individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Azulita-Jane Camacho (CA)
Robert Culp (FL)
Charles Davis (AL)
Christopher Fisher (WA)
John Price (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0139. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 1, 2023 and will expire on
October 1, 2025.
    As of October 8, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Judith Badore (VT)
Dareous Glover (IL)
Delroy Hunt (FL)
John Norman (IL)
Kyle Voss (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2021-0015. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 8, 2023 and will expire on
October 8, 2025.
    As of October 10, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
    Kurt Bernabei (IL); and Steven Robelia (TN).
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0109. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 10, 2023 and will expire on
October 10, 2025.
    As of October 22, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Richard Carter (MD)
Clinton Homon (IL)
Pete Kujawa (WI)
Jonathan Muhm (KY)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-
2018-0138, and FMCSA-2021-0014. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 22, 2023 and will expire on October 22, 2025.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in
Sec.  390.5T; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA; and (3)
each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety
than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless
revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22321 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 59146]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-100]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 178

[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-29245 (HM-244)]
RIN 2137-AE30

Hazardous Materials Regulations: Minor Editorial Corrections and
Clarifications

Correction

    In rule document E7-19138 beginning on page 55678 in the issue of
Monday, October 1, 2007, make the following corrections:

Sec.  172.101  [Corrected]

    1. On page 55690, in Sec.  172.101, in the table, in the last row,
in the seventh column, ``None'' should read ``....''.
    2. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, in the eighth column, ``62'' should read ``None''.
    3. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, in the ninth column, ``None'' should read ``62''.
    4. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, in the 10th column, ``Forbidden'' should read ``None''.
    5. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, in the 12th column, ``08'' should read ``Forbidden''.
    6. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, in the 13th column, ``8E, 14E, 15E, 17E'' should read ``08''.
    7. On the same page, in the same section, in the same table, in the
same row, the 14th column should read ``8E, 14E, 15E, 17E''.

Sec.  178.348-4  [Corrected]

    8. On page 55696, in Sec.  178.348-4(d)(3), in the second column,
in the first line,

C = 520[K(2/(K+1))[(K+1)/(K-1)]]0.5

should read

C = 520[K(2/(K+1))[(K+1)/(K-1)]]\0.5\.

[FR Doc. Z7-19138 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27043-27044]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2026-002.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Transmission Owner Rate Case 2011 (TO13) Settlement to be
effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3459-000.
    Applicants: NRG Solar Roadrunner LLC.
    Description: NRG Solar Roadrunner LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Market Based Rates Filing to be effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5356.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3460-000.
    Applicants: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 4/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5372.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3461-000.
    Applicants: ArcelorMittal USA LLC.
    Description: ArcelorMittal USA LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
AMu MBRA ETariff Baseline to be effective 4/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110429-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3462-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35: Second WestConnect P to P Experiment Tariff to be
effective 7/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110429-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3463-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: CCSF IA--33rd Quarterly Filing of Facilities
Agreements to be effective 3/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110429-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3464-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Sempra Generation.
    Description: Joint Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company
and Sempra Generation.
    Filed Date: 04/29/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110429-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 20, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES10-34-001.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Amendment of Original Application and request for
expanded long-term securities authorization of Consumers Energy
Company.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5404.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ES11-25-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Application of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., for
Authorization Pursuant to FPA Section 204.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5401.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-1-000.
    Applicants: Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC, Pioneer Trail Wind Farm,
LLC, Settlers Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: E.ON CRNA Quarterly Report (Q1 2011) under LA11-1.
    Filed Date: 04/28/2011.
    Accession Number; 20110428-5402.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 19, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11321 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P