[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3077-3079]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0094]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The
regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code
of Federal Regulations as the ``Instructions for Performing and
Recording Physical Examinations'' have resulted in numerous drivers
being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on
the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their
circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2
years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0094--using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316; January 17, 2008).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
letter FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 14
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate
commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate commercial motor vehicles in
intrastate commerce. The advisory criteria indicate that if an
individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss
of consciousness of unknown cause which did not require anti-seizure
medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to
cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV
should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in
consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is
considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from
the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested
that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the
results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is
not required, then the driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified
to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-
seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

Summary of Applications

Salvatore Gerard Adamita

    Mr. Adamita is a 45 year-old CMV driver in the state of Florida. He
has a history of epilepsy and has had two seizures in his lifetime; the
last seizure was in 1992. He has remained seizure free for 20 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for 20 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
straight trucks or single tractor trailer trucks. His physician states
he is supportive of Mr. Adamita receiving an exemption and Mr. Adamita
states he feels he would operate a vehicle at the same safety level as
someone who did not require an exemption.

John W. Boerth

    Mr. Boerth is a 64 year-old class CML driver in the State of
Wisconsin. He had brain surgery in 2002 and has since had 2 seizures,
one in 2002 and the last seizure was June 2003. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 10
years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive vehicles from
one-half ton vans to 18,000 pound straight trucks in interstate
commerce.

Michael C. Breitbach

    Mr. Breitbach is a 56 year-old CMV driver in the State of Iowa. He
has a history of two nocturnal seizures in his lifetime; the last
seizure was in 2002. He has remained seizure free for 10 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for 5 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
tractor trailer trucks. His physician states he is supportive of Mr.
Breitbach receiving an exemption.

Sonja D. Cottle

    Ms. Cottle is a 55 year-old CDL driver in the State of Wisconsin.
She had brain surgery with the removal of a left frontal meningioma in
September 2011. She was placed on anti-seizure medication as a
preventative measure during and after the surgery. She remains on the
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since September 2011. She has never had a seizure. If granted the
exemption, she would like to return to driving semi-tractors with
trailers. Her medical provider states that she believes it is safe for
Ms. Cottle to return to driving CMVs.

Jeffrey Blake Davis

    Mr. Davis is a 47 year-old CMV driver in the State of Maryland. He
has a

diagnosis of seizure disorder post aneurysm with three seizures related
to the diagnosis of the aneurysm. His last seizure was August 2011. He
has remained seizure free for 10 months. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for 10
months. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive dump trucks in
interstate commerce. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Davis
receiving an exemption.

Timothy Grant Edwards

    Mr. Edwards is a 25 year-old driver in the state of Tennessee. He
has a diagnosis of complex partial seizures. His last seizure was in
1992. He has remained seizure free for 20 years. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for 10
years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a service truck
for his employer that weighs more than 10,000 pounds, but less than
26,000 pounds, in interstate commerce.

Juan Flores

    Mr. Flores is a 40 year-old driver in the state of Massachusetts.
He had a closed head injury at age 17 and has had 5 or 6 seizures in
his lifetime, the last one being January 2011. He has remained seizure
free since that time. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same for 1 year. If granted the exemption,
he would like to drive CMVs with aerial buckets and derrick diggers to
install utility poles.

Glenn Gervais

    Mr. Gervais is a 49 year-old class E driver in the state of
Florida, allowing him to drive a commercial non-CDL vehicle. He has had
2 seizures, one in 2009 and the last seizure was February 2011, one
year ago. This seizure was the result of his physician taking him off
of his anti-seizure medication. He has remained seizure free for 1
year. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for 1 year. If granted the exemption, he would like
to return to driving a package delivery truck for UPS in interstate
commerce.

Daryl Goodman

    Mr. Goodman is a 38 year-old CDL driver in the state of New York.
He had a single seizure following brain surgery to remove a tumor in
March 2010. He was taking anti-seizure medication until September 2010,
when his physician stopped the medication. He has remained seizure free
for 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a tractor
trailer in interstate commerce.

James Gorniak

    Mr. Gorniak is a 49 year-old CMV driver in the state of Wisconsin.
Mr. Gorniak had a single seizure in January 2007. It was discovered he
had a brain tumor which was then removed. He was given anti-seizure
medication for a short time after the surgery, but has been off the
medication for 5 years and has remained seizure free since 2007. His
physician states he is supportive of him receiving the exemption. If
granted an exemption, he would like to return to driving tractor
trailers in interstate commerce.

Brian Hanson

    Mr. Hanson is a 53 year-old driver in the state of Oregon. Mr.
Hanson has a diagnosis of epilepsy and his last seizure was in April
2004. He has been off of anti-seizure medication for 6 years. He has
remained seizure free for 8 years. If granted the exemption, he would
like to attend truck driving school and drive tractor trailer with his
wife, as she is a long haul driver.

Victor Marquez

    Mr. Marquez is a 23 year-old driver in the state of Idaho. Mr.
Marquez has had 3 seizures in his lifetime with the last being March
2003. He has been on anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same for 9 years. His physician states that he
believes Mr. Marquez is a good candidate for an exemption. If granted
an exemption, he would like to drive a water truck or flatbed truck in
interstate commerce.

Robert J. Mooney

    Mr. Mooney is a 51 year-old CMV driver in the State of Ohio. He has
a diagnosis of seizure disorder and his last seizure was in 1981. He
has remained seizure free since that time. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 20
years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive 18-passenger
busses in interstate commerce.

Gary Osley

    Mr. Osley is a 36 year-old CDL driver in the state of Kentucky. He
has not ever experienced a seizure. He was given anti-seizure
medication as a precaution before having brain surgery to remove a mass
in October 2011. He remains on the anti-seizure medication at present
for a period up to one year following the surgery, October 2012. He has
remained seizure free. If granted an exemption, he would return to
driving in interstate commerce.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Issued on: January 10, 2013.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-00713 Filed 1-11-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71629]
[DOCID:fr25no08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2743-065]

Four Dam Pool Power Agency; Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.;
Notice of Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 19, 2008.
    On October 6, 2008, Four Dam Pool Power Agency (Transferor) and
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (Transferee) filed an application,
for transfer of license of the Terror Lake Project, located on the
Kizhuyak River in Kodiak, Alaska.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the
Four Dam Pool Power Agency to Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. William H. Prentice, Ater Wynne LLP, 222 SW
Columbia Street, Suite 1800, Portland, OR 97201-6618, phone (503) 226-
1191 and Mr. Darron Scott, General Manager, Kodiak Electric
Association, Inc., P.O. Box 787, Kodiak, AK 99615-0787.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, and
notices of intent may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-2743-
065) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27923 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31372-31375]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72254; File No. SR-ISE-2014-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Regarding Complex Orders

May 27, 2014.
    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 May 20, 2014 the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to adopt additional price
protections for complex orders executed on the Exchange. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
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 self-regulatory organization 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 proposal is to enhance the Exchange's complex
order functionality by adopting additional price protections for
complex orders executed on the Exchange. The Exchange provides in its
rules several complex order protections that currently exist in the
trading system.\3\ Today, under Supplementary Material .07(b) to Rule
722, the trading system rejects any complex order strategy where all
legs are to buy if it is entered at a price that is less than the
minimum price, which is calculated as the sum of the ratio times $0.01
per leg.\4\ Further, Supplementary Material .07(c) to Rule 722 provides
price protection for

vertical spreads where the trading system today rejects a vertical
spread order (i.e., an order to buy a call (put) option and to sell
another call (put) option in the same security with the same expiration
but a higher (lower) strike price) when entered with a net price of
less than zero, and prevents the execution of a vertical spread order
at a price that is less than zero when entered as a market order to
sell.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07.
    \4\ For example, an order to buy 2 calls and buy 1 put would
have a minimum price of $0.03. If such an order were entered at a
price of $0.02, it would not be executable, as a price of zero would
have to be assigned to one of the legs of the order.
    \5\ The vertical spread price check does not apply to complex
orders executed in the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism. Complex orders executed
in these mechanisms are two-sided orders where the contra-side order
is willing to trade with the agency order at an agreed upon price
thus removing the risk that the order was executed erroneously or at
an erroneous price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to enhance existing price protections for
certain complex orders and quotes. The Exchange recognizes two complex
order strategies that could cause undue risk to market participants. In
order to address these strategies, the Exchange proposes to implement
functionality that prevents these complex order strategies from trading
at prices outside of pre-set limits. This proposal will apply only to
vertical spread orders and quotes and to calendar spread orders and
quotes. With this proposed rule change, the trading system will ensure
that neither of these strategies trade outside of quantifiable values
by more than a pre-set amount.
    While the Exchange has developed functionality where the trading
system rejects vertical spreads when entered with a net price of less
than zero and prevents the execution of a vertical spread order at a
price that is less than zero when entered as a market order to sell,
the trading system does not currently reject orders and quotes that are
priced above the maximum value of this strategy. These orders and
quotes trade at prices that are more than the maximum value of the
strategy. With this proposal, the Exchange will allow this price
protection to be adjusted by a pre-set value. As a result, the trading
system will reject vertical spread orders when entered with a net price
of less than zero (minus a pre-set value) and will prevent the
execution of a vertical spread order at a price that is less than zero
(minus a pre-set value) when entered as a market order to sell. The
Exchange will establish a common pre-set value as an amount not to
exceed $1.00 which will apply across all options classes. For example,
assume the market for a January 30 call is 1.00 x 1.20 and for a
January 31 call it is 0.95 x 1.15. Suppose the pre-set value for a
minimum price check for vertical spreads is established by the Exchange
as $0.10. A vertical spread order consisting of a sale of one January
30 call and the purchase of one January 31 call priced at ($0.11) will
be rejected by the trading system because the limit price of this order
is below the pre-set value of ($0.10). A vertical spread market order
to sell, i.e., sale of one January 30 call and the purchase of one
January 31 call priced at the market, will be prevented from trading
with individual bids and offers because the resulting trade, i.e., sale
of January 30 call at $1.00 and purchase of January 31 call at $1.15,
will result in a net price of ($0.15), which is below the pre-set value
of ($0.10).
    The Exchange also proposes to implement functionality where the
trading system will reject a vertical spread order when entered with a
net price greater than the value of the higher strike price minus the
lower strike price (plus a pre-set value) and will prevent the
execution of a vertical spread order at a price that is greater than
the value of the higher strike price minus the lower strike price (plus
a pre-set value) when entered as a market order to buy. The Exchange
will establish a common pre-set value as the lesser of (i) an amount
not to exceed $1.00, and (ii) a percentage of the difference between
strike prices not to exceed 10%, which will apply across all options
classes. For example, assume the market for a January 20 call is 10.55
x 10.70 and for a January 25 call it is 5.35 x 5.50. Suppose the pre-
set value for a maximum price check of vertical spreads is established
by the Exchange as the lesser of $0.10 and 5%. The maximum price for a
vertical spread order consisting of the purchase of one January 20 call
and the sale of one January 25 call is $5.10, which is calculated as
the lesser of the difference between the strike prices plus the pre-set
buffer, or $5.10, and the difference between the strike prices plus the
pre-set buffer percentage of the strike prices difference, or $5.25.
The trading system will therefore accept a vertical spread order
consisting of a purchase of one January 20 call and the sale of one
January 25 call priced at $5.00 but will reject a vertical spread order
priced at $5.15. A vertical spread market order to buy, i.e., purchase
of one January 20 call and sale of one January 25 call priced at the
market, will be prevented from trading with individual bids and offers
because the resulting trade, i.e., purchase of January 20 call at
$10.70 and sale of January 25 call at $5.35, will result in a net price
of $5.35, which is above the maximum price of $5.10.
    A calendar spread is an order to buy a call (put) option with a
longer expiration and to sell another call (put) options with a shorter
expiration in the same security at the same strike price. A buyer of a
calendar spread would buy a longer expiration and sell a shorter
expiration in the same security at the same strike price while a seller
of a calendar spread would sell a longer expiration and buy a shorter
expiration in the same security at the same strike price. With this
proposal, the Exchange proposes to implement functionality where the
trading system will reject a calendar spread order when entered with a
net price of less than zero (minus a pre-set value), and will prevent
the execution of a calendar spread order at a price that is less than
zero (minus a pre-set value) when entered as a market order to sell.
The proposed price protection for calendar spreads will protect both
buyers and sellers of calendar spreads. The Exchange will establish a
common pre-set value as an amount not to exceed $1.00 which will apply
across all options classes. For example, assume the market for a
February 30 call is 1.00 x 1.20 and for a January 30 call it is 0.95 x
1.15. Suppose the pre-set value for a minimum price check of calendar
spreads is established by the Exchange as $0.10. An order to sell a
calendar spread consisting of a sale of one February 30 call and the
purchase of one January 30 call priced at ($0.11) will be rejected by
the trading system because the limit price of this order is below the
pre-set value of ($0.10). A market order to sell a calendar spread
consisting of a sale of one February 30 call and the purchase of one
January 30 call priced at market, will be prevented from trading with
individual bids and offers because the resulting trade, i.e., sale of
February 30 call at $1.00 and purchase of January 30 call at $1.15 will
result in a net price of ($0.15), which is below the pre-set value of
($0.10).
    For purposes of the price protections set forth in Rule 722,
Supplementary Material .07(c)(1) and in proposed Rule 722,
Supplementary Material .07(c)(3), the Exchange will set a common pre-
set value not to exceed $1.00 to be applied uniformly across all
classes. For purposes of the price protections set forth in proposed
Rule 722, Supplementary Material .07(c)(2), the Exchange will set a
common pre-set value of (1) an amount not to exceed $1.00 and (2) a
percentage of the difference between strike prices not to exceed 10% to
be applied uniformly across all classes.
    The Exchange notes, however, that there may be a need to adjust
these values. For example, the Exchange may determine at some future
point in time

to adjust the established pre-set value for all options classes. Any
change to the established pre-set value will be within the parameters
prescribed in the rules and will be communicated to Exchange Members
via circular.
    The Exchange believes adopting a buffer is reasonable because while
market participants may in certain situations be willing to trade a
strategy beyond its minimum value, these trades could occur at
erroneous prices without a cap. The Exchange's ability to adjust the
pre-set value will provide market participants greater flexibility to
execute their trading strategies as it will allow market participants
to execute vertical and calendar spreads even if the strategy is priced
outside its intrinsic value.
    The proposed price checks will not apply to complex orders executed
in the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism and Price
Improvement Mechanism. Complex orders executed in these mechanisms are
two-sided orders where the contra-side order is willing to trade with
the agency order at an agreed upon price thus removing the risk that
the order was executed erroneously or at an erroneous price.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \6\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
proposes to adopt the price protections described in the interest of
protecting investors and to assure fair and orderly markets on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that rejecting vertical
spread orders that are entered at a price greater than their intrinsic
value and preventing the execution of such orders at a price greater
than their intrinsic value when they are entered as a buy market order
protects investors from executing these orders at erroneous prices. The
Exchange further believes that rejecting calendar spread orders that
are entered at a negative price also protects investors from executing
orders that were likely entered in error, and that preventing the
execution of such orders at negative prices when they are entered as a
sell market order, protects investors from paying to sell a strategy
when they expected to receive payment for selling the strategy.
    The Exchange notes, however, that in certain situations, market
participants willingly want to execute certain trading strategies even
if such trades occur outside their intrinsic value or at seemingly
erroneous prices. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide
market participants flexibility to allow them to execute these trading
strategies and therefore to adopt a buffer to permit the execution of
such trading strategies. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
adopt a buffer to give the Exchange the ability to adjust the pre-set
value uniformly across all options classes in the event the Exchange
believes a different pre-set value is more appropriate. Finally, the
Exchange notes that it provides these protections for the benefit of,
and in consultation with, its members. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will help the Exchange to maintain a fair and
orderly market, and provide a valuable service to investors.

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

    The proposed rule change specifies circumstances in which the
trading system does not provide an automatic execution in the interest
of protecting investors against the execution of erroneous orders or
the execution of orders at erroneous prices. As such, the proposal does
not impose any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
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 the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-2014-26 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-2014-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-2014-26, and should be
submitted on or before June 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12646 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P