wells and not soil cores.  Soil samples are to be analyzed for residues of the test pesticide,
degradates, and tracer compounds.  The soil moisture content should be measured for each
sample collected.

46
4.31  Soil Sampling Methods and Instrumentation
Soil samples to verify the application rate should be collected using methods that ensure that
pesticide-free soil does not dilute the samples to which the pesticide has been applied.  When the
pesticide is applied as a spray, soil samples for application verification should be collected from
the surface soil without adding deeper pesticide-free soil.  In this case, a sampler such as the box
sampler will allow the collection of a wide (30 cm) and shallow (8 cm) sample.  If the pesticide
is soil incorporated, the initial soil samples should be collected to the depth of the disturbed zone.
If a banded application is used, soil samples should be collected in the band to the depth of the
disturbed zone.  To avoid discarding any of the applied pesticide, surface plant residue should not
be removed from these samples.
4.32  Number and Location of Soil Cores
A sufficient number of soil samples should be collected from a study site to qualitatively
demonstrate the variability in pesticide application rates across the study site.  The distribution of
soil sampling locations across each study site should be dictated by the method of pesticide
application and the degree of soil homogeneity on the site.  For example, the collection of a
minimum of 15 individual soil cores is required at each sampling period for a 2- to 5-acre study
site with relatively homogeneous soil conditions.  Sites that exhibit marked soil heterogeneities
will require a greater number of soil samples.
4.33  Soil Sampling Timing and Frequency
In general, soil samples should be collected until a pattern of persistence or decline of the
compounds of interest has been established.   Soil cores collected during the first two soil
sampling rounds (pre-application and immediately post-application) should only sample surface
soil.  Shallow soil cores (0 - 10 cm) should be collected during rounds 3 and 4.  Slightly deeper
cores (0 - 100 cm) may be collected following the initial irrigation event, or earlier if a
precipitation event occurs.  Analysis of soil samples for pesticide and tracer residues should be
continued until at least three consecutive (normally monthly) samples show no residues above
the minimum detection (not quantitation) limit or until termination of soil sampling is approved
by EPA.
4.4 SOIL-WATER MONITORING PLAN
Tracer and pesticide residues in soil water are monitored to provide an indication of the
movement of water and the test pesticide through the vadose zone.  Soil-water samples, collected
with soil-solution samplers, suction lysimeters, or other devices, qualitatively track the
downward transport of pesticide residues.  Analytical methods for pesticides in soils commonly
have higher minimum detection limits than those in water, typically by more than an order of
magnitude.  Also, water is likely the medium via which the solutes will be transported.  Thus,
soil-water samples can be used to better track the movement of pesticide residues or tracer in
vadose zone media with a greater power of detection than in soil samples.

47
4.41  Soil Water Content Measurements
The amount of water in soil, or the soil water content, is an important component of assessing a
site's overall water balance.  It is also important for providing water to plants and for transporting
solutes.  Evaporation of water from the soil, transpiration by plants, movement of water, and the
transport of solutes in soil are functionally related to the soil water content.  Soil water, therefore,
is a dynamic property which varies both spatially and temporally.
Soil water content throughout the site should be measured at least monthly (preferably more
frequently).  Soil moisture measurements are a necessary piece of information needed for
modeling flow and for onsite water management; for example, to determine when irrigation is
needed.  Soil water content should be determined for soil samples collected for pesticide and
tracer residue analysis because these parameters should be reported on a dry-weight basis.
4.42  Instrumentation
A number of direct and indirect methods are available to measure soil water content (Gardner,
1986; Topp, 1993).  The gravimetric method (a direct, destructive procedure) is a standard
technique commonly used to collect reference data on soil water content.  Indirect methods
include: electrical conductivity, capacitance and resistance, neutron thermalization, and gamma
ray and neutron attenuation.  Of these methods, the three that appear to have the greatest use and
utility are: gravimetric soil-water content; Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR), an electrical
capacitance method; and neutron probe (neutron thermalization).  Techniques such as TDR or
frequency domain capacitors have the advantage of real-time readouts and no radioactive source.
Tensiometers or other suitable methods should be used to determine the availability of soil water
for sample collection (Cassel and Klute, 1986; Rawlins and Campbell, 1986).  Stannard (1990)
provides a summary of the theory, design, installation, and use of vacuum-gauge, manometer,
and pressure-transducer tensiometers in field investigations.  The types of tensiometers used at
each study site, and their locations, should be documented and reported in the first quarterly
report.
4.43  Location and Frequency of Sampling
Soil water content measurements should be collected near the suction lysimeters and wells.  Soil
water content should be measured when lysimeters are sampled to at least a depth of one meter.
4.44  Soil water Sampling
Because water in the vadose zone is held at negative matric potentials, water will not flow freely
into sampling devices.  Suction, in excess of the soil matric potential, should be applied  to
induce the flow of water into sampling devices.  Therefore, suction lysimeters or other pore-
liquid samplers are required.   There is an extensive body of literature on the function and
limitations of different devices and techniques for extracting water from soil using a pressure
differential.  Reliable, documented methods should be used to collect samples of soil water for
analysis of the applied chemical, degradation products, tracers and other species of interest.

48
4.45  Instrumentation
The operation and effectiveness of suction lysimeters have been described by Morrison (1983);
Everett, Wilson and Hoylman (1984); and Everett and McMillon (1985).  The function and
limitations of various suction sampler designs are presented in Wilson (1990).  Vacuum samplers
can be used to obtain soil-liquid samples from up to 6 feet below the ground surface.  Pressure-
vacuum lysimeters are recommended for water sample collection to a depth of 50 feet (Parizek
and Lane, 1970).  Limitations are discussed by Litaor (1988).
The porous sampling membrane of suction lysimeters can be constructed from a number of
materials.  Testing has shown that sampling membranes constructed of PTFE (Teflon) cannot
sustain a sufficient vacuum to collect samples under high matric potentials.  Prior to installation,
however, laboratory studies should be conducted to assess the degree of sorption exhibited by the
compounds of interest onto the ceramic membranes.
4.46  Depth and Number of Lysimeters
A minimum of eight clusters of four lysimeters each should be installed within the boundaries of
the treated study site.  The lysimeters at each cluster should be installed at four different depths
(!"#" 3, 6, 10 and 15 feet) to provide the greatest coverage of the vadose zone. If the study is
conducted at a site with a ground water table less than 15 feet below grade, fewer lysimeters will
be required per cluster.
4.47  Time of Emplacement
Lysimeters should be in place a minimum of 2 weeks, and preferably one month, prior to the
application of the test pesticide to the study site.  In most cases, this will allow materials in the
lysimeter to seal the annular space and to equilibrate with soil-moisture conditions.  In some
instances, a longer period of time may be necessary to achieve reliable and consistent samples
from suction lysimeters.  It should be noted that Litaor (1988) generally recommended that
solution sampler systems be installed one year before sampling begins so that the samplers can
equilibrate with the surrounding soil.  Suction lysimeters should therefore be tested for
operational effectiveness prior to the field application of the compounds of interest.
4.48  Sampling Frequency
Tensiometers should be regularly monitored to assess the availability of soil water for collection,
and to determine the level of suction required to draw water from soil pores. Samples should be
collected from lysimeters prior to pesticide application and frequently in the early part of the
study.  Soil pore water sampling activities should be coordinated with the collection of ground-
water samples.  A typical sampling scheme is as follows:

49
ROUND
TIMING
DEPTH
Sample 1
Pre-application
3, 6, 9, 15 feet (ALL
DEPTHS)
Sample 2
7 days after application
3, 6 feet
Sample 3
14 days after application
3, 6, 9 feet
Sample 4
1 month after application
3, 6, 9 feet
Sample 5
2 months after application
3, 6, 9 feet
Sample 6
3 months after application
3, 6, 9, 15 feet
Sample 7 - ?
continue monthly sampling
3, 6, 9, 15 feet (ALL
DEPTHS)
Samples should be drawn from lysimeters at each sampling period and analyzed individually.  In
the event that an insufficient volume of water is collected from a lysimeter, samples from two
lysimeters located at the same depth increment may be composited; however the practice of
sample compositing should be avoided if at all possible.  Criteria for termination of sampling are
presented in Chapter 6.  Approval for termination of monitoring should be received from EPA in
writing.
4.5 GROUND-WATER MONITORING PLAN
The purpose of monitoring tracer and pesticide residues in ground water is to provide an
indication of the movement of water, the test pesticide and its degradates through the vadose
zone to ground water.  Ground-water samples should be collected and analyzed for all
compounds of interest (Chapter 2).
4.51  Monitoring Well Design
The success of a ground-water monitoring program for a prospective monitoring study depends
in part on the proper installation of monitoring wells.  Installation of these wells by licensed
professional monitoring well installers, according to published standards specifically related to
the construction of monitoring wells, should ensure that the wells will provide representative
ground-water samples.  Auger, direct push and other acceptable methods of well installation may
be used provided the wells are installed and constructed to ensure reliable sampling of ground
water, and that well materials do not affect sample quality.  Local and state monitoring well
construction, installation and location requirements should be taken into account in planning well
design. Studies have recommended against using existing drinking water wells for monitoring
pesticide concentrations, finding a significant difference in detections between existing wells and
stainless steel monitoring wells (Smith et al., 1998). Well abandonment at the completion of the
study should be done in accordance with local and state regulations.  To minimize site
disturbance, borings completed for site characterization should be used to install monitoring
wells.

50
4.52  Number, Emplacement, and Screen Lengths of Wells Within a Cluster
Ground-water monitoring wells should be installed as clusters.  At each ground-water sampling
location at least two depths should be sampled.  The magnitude of seasonal fluctuations in the
water table should be determined prior to monitoring well installation.  The shallowest well at
each location should be placed to intercept the shallowest occurrence of ground water.  This
generally means that it will be screened across the water table.  The top of the screen for the
second well should be placed at the depth of the bottom of the shallow well screen.
In order to avoid excessive dilution of a pesticide residue or tracer and to focus on a discrete
portion of the aquifer, screen lengths should be no longer than 1.5 meters; generally a smaller
screen is preferable.  If the depth to the water table does not fluctuate drastically, each cluster
should monitor the top 3 meters of the aquifer.  Where the water table fluctuates due to seasonal
or other influences a greater thickness of the aquifer should be screened.
4.53  Number and Location of Monitoring Well Clusters
Monitoring wells should be located up gradient of the treated field in the control plot, within the
treated field and possibly down gradient of the treated field.  A minimum of eight monitoring
well locations should be spatially distributed within the treated field. The placement of a
monitoring well down gradient of the treated field is not critical for a PGW study, but may be
useful for the purposes of assessing impacts to nearby off-site water quality.  State agricultural
agents should be consulted during the planning stage in order to determine if a down gradient
well is beneficial to the study being conducted (in addition to on-site wells) or even required by
the state.  The depth of the well should be determined based on local hydrology to ensure that
water recharged on the treated field is intercepted by the well.  State and local requirements for
ground-water monitoring should be included in planning.
The locations of wells should be randomly distributed within the field.  They may be placed at
randomly chosen nodes on a regular grid to simplify data analysis and to reduce interference with
agronomic practices such as planting, pesticide applications, and irrigation.  Alternatively, the
field may be divided into sectors and more wells located in selected sectors based upon the site
characterization data and the conceptual model.  Factors that might induce differential rates of
infiltration and solute transport through the soil and subsoil include soil texture and structure,
surface topography (shape and gradient), and hydraulic conductivity.  Monitoring wells should
not be placed in areas susceptible to runoff.
4.54  Time of Emplacement
Wells should be installed a minimum of 2 weeks prior to pesticide application.  Time should be
allowed for development and stabilization of the wells prior to use.   They should be in place to
allow background sampling of ground water for site characterization prior to pesticide
application.

51
4.55  Sampling Frequency
Ground-water samples should be collected more frequently in the early part of the study and
coordinated with the collection of soil and soil water samples and irrigation events.  One pre-
application sample should also be collected from all wells.  Ground-water samples should be
collected 14 days after the initial application, and at least once a month after that time from all
monitoring wells.  Additional samples should be collected before 14 days if there is reason to
believe the compounds of interest may move rapidly (for example, following a large rainfall or
irrigation event).  Some researchers have indicated that pesticides may leach to very shallow
ground water beneath agricultural fields shortly after major recharge events.  Based on analytical
results of soil and soil water sampling, additional ground-water sampling events may be
scheduled.  Criteria for termination of sampling are presented in Chapter 6.  Approval for
termination of monitoring should be received from EPA in writing.  A typical sampling scheme
is:
ROUND
TIMING
Sample 1
Pre-application
Sample 2
14 days after application
Sample 3
1 month after application
Sample 4
2 months after application
Sample 5
3 months after application
Sample 6 - ?
continue monthly sampling

52
4.56  Instrumentation
The study director should ensure that all sample collection equipment will not alter the quality of
ground-water samples during transfer or collection activities.  A wide range of sampling devices
suitable for sampling nonvolatile organic chemicals in ground water is available, but only a few
are suitable for volatile organic compounds.  For instance, most pumps and bailers are not
suitable for the collection of volatiles.  Also, certain types of sampling equipment may not be
appropriate in any situation: $"!", peristaltic pumps generally cannot sample as deep as 30 feet.
Sampler parts should be constructed of materials that will not contaminate or alter sample
integrity.  Typically teflon or stainless steel sampling equipment is preferred (USEPA, 1986b).
In addition, pesticides may adsorb to certain types of tubing such as silicone rubber, Nalgene
180, Tygon R-3603, and low-density polyethylene.  Teflon or stainless steel bailers should
alleviate this problem in most situations.  Dedicated sampling pumps are recommended to avoid
cross-contamination.  If these will not be used, then decontamination procedures which are
appropriate for the situation should be used.
4.57  Sampling Methods
Before any well is sampled, the static water levels should be obtained.  Water levels should also
be measured in each piezometer during the sampling round.  This information will be used to
construct a water table map for each sampling period.  Wells should be purged before sampling.
Samples should be drawn from each monitoring well during each sampling period and analyzed
individually.  The first ground-water samples from each round should be drawn from the furthest
up gradient well clusters.  Sampling should then progress down gradient.  Sampling for
subsequent events should remain in the same order unless analytical results indicate
contamination of up gradient wells.  In this case, sampling should progress from the well
displaying the lowest pesticide residues to the well displaying the greatest pesticide residues.
4.58  Integrated Sampling Schedule
Once design decisions have been made about how and when to sample soil, soil water, and
ground water, these decisions should be integrated into one monitoring plan for the ground-water
monitoring study.  An example of a coordinated monitoring schedule is given below:

53
ROUND
TIMING
MEDIA SAMPLED
Sample 1
Pre-application
Soil (0 - 3 inches), ALL Soil Water, ALL
Monitoring Wells.
Sample 2
Immediately post-application
Soil (0 - 3 inches)
Sample 3
1 day after application
Soil (0 - 1 foot),
Sample 4
3 days after application, (irrigate)
Soil (0 - 1 foot),
Sample 5
7 days after application
Soil (0 - 1 foot), Soil Water (3, 6 feet)
Sample 6
14 days after application
Soil (0 - 1 foot), Soil Water (3, 6, 9 feet),
ALL Monitoring Wells
Sample 7
1 month after application (irrigate)
Soil (0 - 2 feet), Soil Water (3, 6, 9 feet),
ALL Monitoring Wells
Sample 8
2 months after application (irrigate)
ALL Soil Water, ALL Monitoring Wells
Samples 9 -
?
3 months after application - study
termination (irrigate)
ALL Soil Water, ALL Monitoring Wells


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 1 5 8 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Lead Based Paint Pre Renovation Information Dissemination  TSCA Sec. 406( b)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1669.04 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Lead Based Paint; Recordkeeping 10. Abstract Renovators of target housing are required to provide EPA's lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants before beginning renovations for compensation. Renovators are also required to reveal the nature and extent of renovations in common areas of multifamily housing to occupants prior to beginning renovations for compensation.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 2,482,000 b. Total annual responses 2,482,000 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 3,461,542 d. Current OMB inventory 2,938,546 e. Difference 522,996 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 522,996 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 3,939 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 3,939 d. Current OMB inventory 9,231 e. Difference  5,292 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment  5,292 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. O Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or Designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80215]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice of Surplus Property Release; Spokane International
Airport, Spokane, Washington

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release surplus property.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from the City of Spokane, Washington and the County of Spokane,
Washington, to waive the surplus property requirements for
approximately 1.07 acres of airport property located at Spokane
International Airport, in Spokane, Washington. The subject property is
located away from the aeronautical area and currently vacant. The
property will remain vacant of any structures, as it will be utilized
for public road improvements creating a roundabout for access to the
Interstate 90 freeway. This release will allow the City and County to
sell 1 parcel of airport property to WSDOT interested in accommodating
increased traffic and access to the business park. There will be
proceeds generated from the proposed release of this property for
public road improvements. The City and County will receive not less
than fair market value for the property and the revenue generated from
the sale will be used for airport purposes. It has been determined
through study that the subject parcel will not be needed for
aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments can be
provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington, 98198,
(206) 231-4140.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on this application may be
mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address:
    Ms. Mandi Lesauis, Compliance Specialist, at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 S. 216th St., Des Moines, Washington 98198.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47153(c))

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 7, 2020.
William C. Garrison,
Acting Manager,Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2020-27230 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19604-19605]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0119; FRL 9944-64-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Motor
Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees (Renewal), EPA ICR 2080.06,
OMB Control No. 2060-0545

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Motor Vehicle and
Engine Compliance Program Fees (Renewal)'', EPA ICR 2080.06, OMB
Control No. 2060-0545 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collections as
described below. This is a proposed extensions of the ICRs, which is
currently approved through September 30, 2016. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0119, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method),
by email to Lynn Sohacki at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4851; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA has regulations
establishing emission standards and other requirements for various
classes of vehicles, engines, and evaporative emissions. These
regulations require that compliance be demonstrated prior to EPA
granting a ``Certificate of Conformity''. EPA charges fees for
administering this certification program. In 2004 the fees program was
expanded to include non-road categories of vehicles and engines, such
as several categories of marine engines, locomotives, non-road
recreational vehicles, and many non-road compression-ignition and
spark-ignition engines. Manufacturers and importers of covered
vehicles, engines and components are required to pay the applicable
certification fees prior to their certification applications being
reviewed. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7542(c))
all information, other than trade secret processes or methods, must be
publicly available. Information about fee payments is treated as
confidential information prior to certification.
    Form Numbers: EPA Forms 3520-29.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers or importers of
passenger cars, motorcycles, light trucks, heavy duty truck engines,
non-road vehicles or engines, and evaporative emissions components
required to receive a certificate of conformity from EPA prior to
selling or introducing these products into commerce in the U.S.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (40 CFR part 1027). Estimated number of respondents: 597.

    Frequency of response: Yearly and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 927 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $59,683 (per year), which includes $9,965
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 586 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease is an adjustment of the estimate due to the decrease
in the number of fee forms received from manufacturers and, more
significantly, the decrease in labor due to the institution of an all-
electric payment system which eliminates the need to print and fill
forms by hand, resulting in a significant decrease in labor hours.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016-07804 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27553-27554]
[DOCID:fr16my07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

May 9, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG07-52-000.
    Applicants: Goat Mountain Wind, LP.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Goat Mountain Wind, LP.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 29, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER91-505-008; EL92-18-005.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Changes to Rate
Schedule 143 in Compliance with April 6, 2007 Order.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FR04-157-020.

    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company; Bangor Hydro-Electric
Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company Regional Refund Report
pursuant to Commission's 10/31/06 Order.

    Filed Date: 05/08/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1455-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a revised Participation
Power Agreement with Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC in compliance
with FERC's letter order issued on 12/7/06.
    Filed Date: 05/03/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-404-002.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits a redline and
clean version of Substitute Original Service Agreement 253 with an
effective dated of 3/2/07.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-835-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation dba Progress Energy Florida,
Inc submits its annual cost factor updates that implement the
contractually authorized changes in certain cost components for
interchange services.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070504-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 23, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-838-000; ER07-839-000; ER07-840-000; ER07-841-
000; ER07-842-000; ER07-843-000; ER07-844-000; ER07-845-000; ER07-846-
000; ER07-847-000; ER07-848-000; ER07-849-000; ER07-850-000; ER07-851-
000; ER07-852-000; ER07-853-000; ER07-854-000; ER07-855-000; ER07-856-
000; ER07-857-000; ER07-858-000.
    Applicants: Bridgeport Energy, LLC; Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC;
Griffith Energy LLC; Dynegy Arlington Valley, LLC; Dynegy Kendall
Energy, LLC; Dynegy Mohave, LLC; Dynegy Morro Bay, LLC; Dynegy Moss
Landing, LLC; Dynegy Oakland, LLC; Dynegy South Bay, LLC; Ontelaunee
Power Operating Company, LLC; Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C.; Dynegy Midwest
Generation, Inc.; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C.;
Renaissance Power, L.L.C.; Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C.; Rocky
Road Power, LLC; Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.; Sithe/Independence
Power Partners, L.P.; Sithe Energy Marketing, L.P.
    Description: Bridgeport Energy, LLC et al submits notices of
succession and revised market-based rate tariffs (Attachments B-1
through B-13) etc for the Dynegy Entities.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 23, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-859-000.
    Applicants: Orion Power MidWest, LP.
    Description: Orion Power Midwest LP submits its Notice of
Cancellation of the Cost of Service Recovery Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0233.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-860-000.
    Applicants: Aquila Merchant Services, Inc.
    Description: Aquila Merchant Services Inc submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its Second Revised Sheet 1 et al to FERC Electric
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-861-000.
    Applicants: California Power Exchange Corporation.
    Description: California Power Exchange Corporation submits a
petition requesting FERC to extend the term of the Settlement through
12/31/10.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070507-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 25, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:
    Docket Numbers: FC07-50-000.
    Applicants: TransCanada Energy Ltd.
    Description: TransCanada Energy, Ltd submits notice of self-
certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 05/02/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070508-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 23, 2007.
    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 Sec.
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.
    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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9333 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9611-9612]
[DOCID:fr05mr09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-29-000; Docket No. EL09-30-000]

NorthWestern Corporation; Mountain States Transmission Intertie,
LLC; NorthWestern Corporation; Notice of Technical Conference

February 25, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission Staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceedings on Thursday, March 12,
2009, at 1 p.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    At the conference, Commission Staff and interested persons will
have the

opportunity to discuss issues associated with the above-mentioned
filings, including, but not be limited to: rates and service on the
projects proposed by the filings; distinctions between the two
projects; open seasons; queue procedures; system configuration and
siting issues; and requested waivers. The Petitioners \1\ should be
prepared to address all the concerns raised in the protests, and to
provide, as necessary, additional support for the filings. A subsequent
notice will be issued before the conference that will provide details
of the issues that Staff wishes to discuss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners include Northwestern Corporation and Mountain
States Transmission Intertie, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact either Timothy Duggan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Katie Detweiler at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4711 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41776-41779]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17492]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86617; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Ability To Submit Frequent Trader Forms

August 9, 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 August 7, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend the ability to submit Frequent Trader Forms. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 its fee schedule with respect to its
Frequent Trader Program. By way of background, through the Frequent
Trader Program, the Exchange offers transaction fee rebates to
Customers and Professional Customers and Voluntary Professionals
(origin codes ``C'' and ``W'', respectively) (collectively
``Customers'') that meet certain volume thresholds in VIX, SPX
(including SPXW) and RUT options, provided the Customer registers for
the program (the ``Frequent Trader Program'' or ``Program''). Once
registered, the Customer is provided a unique identification number
(``FTID'') that can be affixed to each of its orders. The FTID allows
the Exchange to identify and aggregate all electronic and manual trades
during both the Regular Trading Hours and Global Trading Hours sessions
from that Customer for purposes of determining whether the Customer
meets any of the various volume thresholds. The Customer has to provide
its FTID to the Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') submitting that
Customer's order to the Exchange (``executing agent'' or ``executing
TPH'') and that executing TPH would have to enter the Customer's FTID
on each of that Customer's orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it is the responsibility of the
Customer to request that the executing TPH affix its FTID to its
order(s), and that it is voluntary for the executing TPH to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there are instances however, in which a
Customer's FTID was not or could not be, affixed to an order. For
example, an executing TPH may receive an order with multiple contra
parties, including parties that are also customers with their own
unique FTIDs. The executing TPH's front end system however, may only
allow it to input only one FTID on the order. Thus the other Customers
to the trade would not have their FTID represented at the time of
submission. Additionally, it is possible that an executing TPH
inadvertently enters an incorrect FTID number on an order. Accordingly,
the Exchange adopted a rule to provide executing TPHs the ability to
submit to the exchange a form (the ``Frequent Trader Program--Volume
Corrections Form'' or ``Form'') that would provide a mechanism for
executing TPHs to identify transactions to the Exchange that should
have been, but were not, associated with particular FTIDs. More
specifically, the executing TPH would identify on the form the
``correct'' FTID that should be associated with a specific transaction,
so that such volume is properly counted towards the appropriate
Customer's aggregated volume for purposes of determining what tier, if
any, the customer meets. Currently, the Frequent Trader Program--Volume
Corrections Form (``FT Form'') has to be submitted to the Exchange
within 3 business days.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to modify the
means in which TPHs submit the information required on the FT Form and
shorten the submission deadline. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
that instead of using the current FT Form, all TPHs must submit FTID
information electronically to the Exchange in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange.\7\ Such electronic submission must be
received no later than 6:00 p.m. CT on the trade date. In order to
provide some flexibility in the event of extenuating circumstances
(such as a system issue), the Exchange additionally proposes to provide
that, in extenuating circumstances as determined by the Exchange, the
deadline may be extended until 6:00 p.m. CT on the business day
following the trade date. The Exchange believes that it is no longer
necessary to provide TPHs 3 days to submit the current form.
Particularly, the Exchange believes that TPHs shouldn't need more than
the trade date to submit FTID information electronically as it is not
an overly burdensome process. The Exchange also notes that the Frequent
Trader Program was established over three years ago and TPHs therefore
should be familiar with the program and its requirements and more
proficient in ensuring FTID information is submitted in a timely
manner. Indeed, absent unusual circumstances, the Exchange believes all
TPHs should be able to meet the modified deadline. The proposed rule
change would streamline the process and result in the FTID information
being submitted in a timelier manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77659 (April 20,
2016), 81 FR 24678 (April 26, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-037)
    \7\ The Exchange has issued an Exchange Trade Notice providing
the details as to how TPHs may submit such information to the
Exchange and any corresponding deadline. See Cboe Options Trade
Notice, ``Frequent Trader ID Additions and Corrections--Change in
Procedures'', Reference ID C2019060700, which sets forth the file
format, information required and corresponding deadlines. To the
extent the Exchange amends the process or deadline in the future,
the Exchange will similarly issue Exchange a new Trade Notice
describing the changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an 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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange notes that eliminating the 3 day
submission period for FTID information to be submitted helps ensure
that a Customer's real trading volume is more immediately and
accurately represented, which helps streamline the administration of
the Program. The Exchange believes that all TPHs should be able to
prepare and submit such FTID information electronically to the Exchange
on the trade date. The proposed change also ensures timely processing
and finality. The establishment of this process will also make it
easier for the Exchange to administer the Frequent Trader Program.
Additionally, it has been approximately 3 years since the original FT
Form was adopted and as such, TPHs should be familiar with the

Frequent Trader Program and should have systems and procedures in place
to process to provide the required FTID information on the trade date.
The Exchange also notes that the ability to provide FTID information
electronically to the Exchange post-trade is merely an additional means
to ensure FTPID information is relayed to the Exchange. TPHs still have
the option of affixing FTIDs on the orders or may add or modify FTID
information on post-trade records on the trade date via Cboe Trade
Match (``CTM'') terminals. As such, the Exchange believes
notwithstanding the proposed changes, that TPHs still are provided a
variety of means to ensure FTID information is relayed to the Exchange
in a timely, efficient manner, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change
applies uniformly to all executing TPHs of Customer FTID orders and
because it still provides for an alternative means for which a
Customer's FTID that was not applied to that Customer's order at the
time of entry is still submitted to the Exchange to be counted towards
the Frequent Trader Program thresholds. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary burden on
intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on Cboe
Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market
participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 \11\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 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 \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ 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 upon filing. The Exchange states that
in June 2019, TPHs received prior notice of the proposed change and
proposed implementation date for the beginning of August.\15\ The
proposal converts the paper-based process through which TPHs submit
information required pursuant to the optional frequent trader fee
incentive program and instead requires TPHs to submit that information
electronically. Given the ministerial nature of this change, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See Cboe Options Trade Notice, ``Frequent Trader ID
Additions and Corrections--Change in Procedures'', Reference ID
C2019060700.
    \16\ 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-CBOE-2019-043 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-CBOE-2019-043. 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-CBOE-2019-043 and should be submitted on
or before September 5, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17492 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8244-8248]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79811; File No. SR-ISE-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

January 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 3, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in
more detail below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees to eliminate, for all symbols other than FX symbols,
the $0.20 per contract fee applicable to Professional Customers \3\ for
the initiating or contra side of Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
orders or orders executed in the Solicitation Mechanism
(``Solicitation'' orders). The proposed rule change will lower the
rebates that the Exchange provides to members acting as agent when
Professional Customers trade with other Professional Customers and when
they trade with Priority Customers for QCC and other solicited crossing
orders \4\ to the same per contract rates and volume tiers that the
Exchange presently provides to members acting as agent

when Priority Customers \5\ trade with other Priority Customers for
such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See ISE Rule
100(37C).
    \4\ As used herein, the phrase ``other solicited crossing
orders'' refers to solicited crossing orders executed in the
Solicitation, Facilitation, and Price Improvement Mechanisms.
    \5\ Under ISE Rule 100(37A), a ``Priority Customer'' is a person
or entity that: (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities; and
(ii) does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day
on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). Pursuant to ISE Rule 713, Priority Customer orders are
executed before other trading interest at the same price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in ISE Rule 715(j), a QCC is an option order type that
allows members to cross at least 1,000 contracts without exposure, as
long as: (i) the agency/originating side of the trade consists of an
order of at least 1,000 contracts and (ii) the order is part of a
Qualified Contingent Trade (``QCT''). As is further set forth in the
Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 715, a QCT is a transaction
consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or
principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS Stock, as
defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act of 1934;
(b) all the components are effected with a product or price contingency
that either has been agreed to by all respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between the
prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a derivative
relationship to one another, represent different classes of shares of
the same issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers
or with intentions to merge that have been announced or cancelled; and
(f) the transaction is fully hedged (without regard to any prior
existing position) as a result of other components of the contingent
trade. The Commission first approved the QCC order type for ISE on
February 24, 2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (Feb. 24,
2011), 76 FR 11533 (Mar. 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.20 per contract to
Professional Customers for QCC and other solicited crossing orders.\7\
It does not assess a fee for such orders to Priority Customers.\8\ The
Exchange proposes to eliminate the fee it charges to Professional
Customers for QCC and Solicitation orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ISE Schedule of Fees, updated Nov. 1, 2016, at 6,
available at https://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf (``ISE Fee Schedule'').
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also pays rebates on QCC and other solicited crossing
orders once specified volume thresholds are met during each month.\9\
The existing rebate schedule and corresponding explanatory notes are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. QCC and Solicitation Rebate

    [rtarr8]Members using the Qualified Contingent Cross (QCC) and/or
other solicited crossing orders, including solicited orders executed in
the Solicitation, Facilitation or Price Improvement Mechanisms, will
receive rebates according to the table below for each originating
contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Once a Member
reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or solicited
crossing orders during a month, the Exchange will provide rebates to
that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order traded
contracts for that month. The applicable rebates will be applied on QCC
and solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume threshold
is met. Members will receive the Non-``Customer to Customer'' rebate
for all QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders except for QCC and
solicited orders between two Priority Customers. QCC and solicited
orders between two Priority Customers will receive the ``Customer to
Customer'' rebate or ``Customer to Customer'' Rebate PLUS,
respectively. The volume threshold and corresponding rebates are as
follows:
    [rtarr8]Non-``Customer to Customer'' and ``Customer to Customer''
volume will be aggregated in determining the applicable volume tier.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-``Customer   ``Customer to   ``Customer to
                   Originating contract sides                      to Customer''    Customer''      Customer''
                                                                      rebate          rebate       rebate PLUS*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 99,999.....................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
100,000 to 199,999..............................................          (0.05)          (0.01)          (0.05)
200,000 to 499,999..............................................          (0.07)          (0.01)          (0.05)
500,000 to 699,999..............................................          (0.08)          (0.03)          (0.05)
700,000 to 999,999..............................................          (0.09)          (0.03)          (0.05)
1,000,000+......................................................          (0.11)          (0.03)          (0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PLUS rebate is for Members with total monthly unsolicited originating Facilitation contract side volume of
  175,000 or more.

    As set forth in this schedule, the Exchange presently provides
rebates to members acting as agents for QCC trades involving
Professional Customers (both Professional-to-Professional and
Professional-to-Priority trades) in accordance with the ``Non-`Customer
to Customer' '' schedule for all qualifying executed QCC and solicited
crossing orders, while it provides rebates to members acting as agents
for such trades involving all Priority Customers (Priority-to-Priority
trades) in accordance with the ``Customer to Customer'' or ``Customer
to Customer Rebate Plus'' schedules.\10\ The Exchange proposes to
modify its rebate schedule to state that QCC and other solicited
crossing orders between Professional Customers or between Professional
Customers and Priority Customers will qualify for rebates in accordance
with the ``Customer to Customer'' or ``Customer to Customer Rebate
Plus'' schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would treat Professional Customers and
Priority Customers the same with respect to fees for QCC and
Solicitation orders. It would also treat QCC and other solicited
crossing orders involving all Professional Customers, all Priority
Customers, and a mix of Priority and Professional Customers the same
with respect to rebates. The Exchange believes that it is not necessary
to differentiate Professional Customers and Priority Customers for
these purposes because QCC and Solicitation orders are not executed
pursuant to a priority scheme.\11\ Moreover, because of the size

of these orders, the sophistication of the investors involved, and the
complexity of the transactions, there is little practical difference
between Priority Customers and Professional Customers with respect to
QCC and Solicitation orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ISE Rules provide that if, at the time a QCC or
Solicitation order is entered, a Priority Customer order exists on
the Exchange's order book, then in certain instances, the QCC or
Solicitation order will be cancelled or the order will be executed
against the Priority Customer order. See Rules 716(e) & 721. These
Rules do not suggest that in this instance, the Priority Customer
would receive execution priority because such a trade would be
executed outside of the QCC or Solicitation Mechanism. We also note
that the transaction fee schedule applicable to QCC and Solicitation
orders would not apply to this trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate transaction fees for
Professional Customers engaged in QCC and Solicitation orders as a
means of attracting more such orders to the Exchange and to retain the
business of Professional Customers vis-[agrave]-vis competing exchanges
that do not presently charge Professional Customers such fees.\12\ The
Exchange notes that a recent modification to the ISE Rules caused many
of its Priority Customers to be re-classified as Professional
Customers.\13\ Whereas these Customers, as Priority Customers,
previously incurred no fees for executing QCC and Solicitation orders,
they will incur such fees going forward as Professional Customers
absent the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE AMEX Options Fee Schedule, effective Dec. 15,
2016, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NYSE Arca Options Fees and
Charges, effective Nov. 3, 2016, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NASDAQ
PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78788 (Sept. 8,
2016), 81 FR 63252 (Sept. 14, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the Exchange proposes to eliminate fees for its
Professional Customers that execute QCC and Solicitation orders, the
rationale for providing rebates is diminished for QCC and other
solicited crossing orders involving Professional Customers trading with
other Professional Customers and with Priority Customers. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to reduce the levels of rebates it provides for
QCC and other solicited crossing orders involving Professional
Customers trading with other Professional Customers and with Priority
Customers to the same levels as it provides to such trades involving
two Priority Customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37497, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
(``NetCoalition''),\17\ the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\18\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 534-535.
    \18\ See id. at 534.
    \19\ See id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \20\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is reasonable to no longer assess a transaction fee for
Professional Customer QCC and Solicitation orders and to pay a reduced
rebate on Professional Customer orders because the distinction that
necessitated the differentiation as between Priority Customer and
Professional Customer orders is not meaningful with respect to QCC and
Solicitation orders.
    QCC orders are orders to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts.\21\
These large-sized contingent orders are complex in nature and have a
stock-tied component, which requires the option leg to be executed at
the NBBO or better. The parties to a contingent trade are focused on
the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the
component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire contingent
trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single component.
Also, no Priority Customer priority exists with respect to QCC Orders
as with orders transacted within the order book. Permitting
Professional Customer orders to be treated similar to Priority Customer
orders with respect to this order type may attract more QCC and
Solicitation orders to the Exchange because the Exchange would no
longer assess a QCC or Solicitation order transaction fee for
Professional Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See ISE Rule 715(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange recently amended its definition of a
Professional Customer to add specificity with respect to the manner in
which the volume threshold will be calculated to determine if orders
should be treated as Professional Customer.\22\ Currently, members are
required to review their Customers' activity on at least a quarterly
basis to determine whether orders that are not for the account of a
broker-dealer should be represented as Priority Customer orders or
Professional Customer orders.\23\ The Exchange anticipates that the
specificity added to the Professional Customer definition may cause
current market participants that mark orders as ``Priority Customer''
to be required to mark those orders as

``Professional Customer'' instead as the calendar quarter comes to a
close. Thus, orders that these market participants would have marked as
``Priority Customer,'' and that would not have been subject to a QCC
transaction fee, would, in absence of this proposal, be marked
``Professional Customer'' and incur a QCC transaction fee. With this
proposal, such Professional Customer orders would not be assessed a QCC
transaction fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 13.
    \23\ Orders for any customer that had an average of more than
390 orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be
represented as Professional Orders for the next calendar quarter.
Members will be required to conduct a quarterly review and make any
appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders
within five days after the end of each calendar quarter. While
Members only will be required to review their accounts on a
quarterly basis, if during a quarter the Exchange identifies a
customer for which orders are being represented as Priority Customer
Orders but that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a
month, the Exchange will notify the Member and the Member will be
required to change the manner in which it is representing the
customer's orders within five days. See 81 FR at 63253, n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that no longer assessing a QCC transaction
fee for Professional Customer orders and paying a reduced QCC rebate on
Professional Customer-to-Professional Customer and Professional
Customer-to-Priority Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because QCC and Solicitation orders are distinctive from
transactions executed within the order book. Whereas orders executed
within the order book grant Priority Customers execution priority over
other market participants, QCC and Solicitation orders do not grant
execution priority.\24\ Insofar as the rationale for distinguishing
between Priority Customers and Professional Customers was to prevent
market professionals, which have access to sophisticated trading
systems with functionality unavailable to retail Customers, from taking
advantage of retail Customers' execution priority over non-retail
Customer orders,\25\ this rationale does not apply to QCC or
Solicitation orders. As the Commission noted when it approved the QCC
order type on the Exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 11.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57254 (Feb. 1,
2008), 73 FR 7345, 7346 n.7 (Feb. 7, 2008).

    The Commission believes that those customers participating in
QCC Orders will likely be sophisticated investors who should
understand that, without a requirement of exposure for QCC Orders,
their order would not be given an opportunity for price improvement
on the Exchange. These customers should be able to assess whether
the net prices they are receiving for their QCC Order are
competitive, and who will have the ability to choose among broker-
dealers if they believe the net price one broker-dealer provides is
not competitive. Further, broker-dealers are subject to a duty of
best execution for their customers' orders, and that duty does not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
change for QCC Orders.\26\

    \26\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February
24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, because of the size of the orders, the sophistication of the
investors involved, and the complexity of the transactions, pricing
differentiation between Priority Customer and Professional Customer
orders is unnecessary with respect to QCC and Solicitation orders.
    With respect to distinguishing Professional Customer orders from
other Non-Customer participant orders, the Exchange notes that these
other market participants are distinct from Professional Customers for
purposes of assessing QCC transaction fees. With respect to Firm
Proprietary and Non-ISE Market Makers, for example, these market
participants are eligible for a Crossing Fee Cap of $75,000 per
month.\27\ These participants are not subject to QCC transaction fees
once the Crossing Fee Cap is met in a given month.\28\ Market Makers
are eligible for fee discounts, on a tiered basis, for regular orders
in non-select symbols.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See ISE Fee Schedule, supra note 7, at 17.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id. at 6-7, 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Insofar as the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees it charges
to Professional Customers for QCC and Solicitation orders, the Exchange
believes that it would no longer be equitable to pay rebates at
existing levels to members acting as agent when Professional Customers
trade with Priority Customers and other Professional Customers for QCC
and other solicited crossing orders. Thus, the Exchange proposes to
reduce these rebates to the same levels as those it pays for QCC orders
involving Priority Customers trading with other Priority Customers.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that the Commission recently approved a
similar proposal by Phlx to eliminate its QCC transactions fees and
rebates for its professional customers.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77673 (Apr. 14,
2016), 81 FR 249009 (Apr. 21, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The initial purpose of the distinction between a Priority Customer
order and a Professional Customer order was to prevent market
professionals, which have access to sophisticated trading systems that
contain functionality not available to retail Customers, from taking
advantage of Priority Customer priority, where retail Customer orders
are given execution priority over Non-Customer orders. Professional
Customer orders are identified based upon the average number of orders
entered for a beneficial account.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QCC orders are by definition large-sized contingent orders that
have a stock-tied component. The parties to a contingent trade are
focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each
of the component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire
contingent trade), rather than on the absolute price of any single
component. Treating Priority Customer orders and Professional Customer
orders in the same manner in terms of pricing with respect to QCC and
Solicitation orders does not provide any advantage to a Professional
Customer. The distinction does not create an opportunity to burden
competition, for the reasons stated herein with respect to execution
priority as well as the reasons below.
    With respect to distinguishing Professional Customer orders from
other Non-Customer participant orders, the Exchange notes that these
other market participants are distinct from Professional Customers for
purposes of assessing QCC transaction fees. With respect to Firm
Proprietary and Non-ISE Market Makers, for example, these market
participants are eligible for a Crossing Fee Cap of $75,000 per
month.\32\ These participants are not subject to QCC transaction fees
once the Crossing Fee Cap is met in a given month.\33\ Market Makers
are eligible for fee discounts, on a tiered basis, for regular orders
in non-select symbols.\34\ Also, Priority Customer-to-Professional
Customer orders do not impose an undue burden on intra-market

competition for the reasons explained herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See ISE Fee Schedule, supra note 7, at 17.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id. at 6-7, 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal does not place on undue burden on inter-
market competition because the QCC order type is similar on other
options exchanges and these exchanges may also file to eliminate the
distinction between Priority Customers and Professionals for the QCC
order type.\35\ The Exchange notes that the Commission recently
approved a similar proposal by Phlx to eliminate both its QCC
transactions fees and its rebates for its professional customers.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 12.
    \36\ See supra note 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 20 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,21 [sic] because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings 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-2017-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-01 and should be
submitted by February 14, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01466 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P