[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46593-46600]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19001]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86788; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rules 6.60-O and 6.65A-O Regarding
the Treatment of Orders Subject to Trade Collar Protection

August 28, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 21, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 modify Rules 6.60-O (Price Protection--
Orders) and 6.65A-O (Limit-Up and Limit-Down During Extraordinary
Market Volatility) regarding the treatment of orders subject to Trade
Collar Protection. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rules 6.60-O(a) and 6.65A-O
regarding the treatment of orders subject to Trade Collar Protection.
    The Exchange has in place various price check features that are
designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market, including Trade
Collar Protection.\4\ Trading Collars mitigate the risks associated
with orders sweeping through multiple price points (including during
extreme market volatility) and resulting in executions at prices that
are potentially erroneous (i.e., because they are away from the last
sale price or best bid or offer). By applying Trading Collars to
incoming orders, the Exchange provides an opportunity to attract
additional liquidity at tighter spreads and it ``collars'' affected
orders at successive price points until the bid and offer are equal to
the bid-ask differential guideline for that option, i.e., equal to the
Trading Collar. Similarly, by applying Trading Collars to partially
executed orders, the Exchange prevents the balance of such orders from
executing away from the prevailing market after exhausting interest at
or near the top of book on arrival. The Exchange proposes to modify its
rule regarding Trading Collars (i.e., Rule 6.60-O(a) or the ``Rule'')
to clarify existing functionality and to adopt enhancements to the
operation of the Trading Collars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Per Rule 6.60-O(a)(2), Trading Collars are determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis and, unless announced otherwise
via Trader Update, are the same value as the bid-ask differential
guidelines established pursuant to Rule 6.37-O(b)(4). The Exchange
proposes a streamlining technical change to combine the buy and sell
sections of the Rule into one paragraph since the Trading Collar
value is the same whether a buy or sell order. See proposed Rule
6.60-O(a)(2)(A). To conform with this proposed change, the Exchange
proposes to re-number current paragraph (a)(2)(C) to proposed
(a)(2)(B), without any substantive changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(i) states that Trade Collar Protection
prevents the ``immediate execution'' of incoming Market Orders when the
difference between the National Best Offer (``NBO'') and the National
Best Bid (``NBB'') is greater than one Trading Collar. Rule 6.60-
O(a)(1)(ii) states that Trade Collar Protection prevents the execution
of the balance of an incoming Market Order or marketable limit order to
buy (sell) if it would execute at a price that exceeds the width of the
National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') plus (minus) the value of one
Trading Collar. Thus, the current rule limits the application of Trade
Collar Protection to incoming Market Orders and only expands this
protection to include marketable Limit Orders once there is a balance
of a partially executed order that is subject to such protection.
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.60-O(a) to make clear that
Trade Collar Protection may be applied to marketable Limit Orders on
arrival. Although this reflects current functionality, the rule is
silent in this regard and focuses solely on any unexecuted portion of a
marketable Limit Order. Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.60-O(a), the
Exchange would ``limit the immediate execution'' of incoming Market
Orders and marketable Limit Orders (collectively, ``Marketable
Orders''; and each a ``collared order'') if the width of the NBBO is
greater than one Trading Collar.\5\ This proposed change would clarify
how Trade Collar Protection currently operates and explicitly state
that marketable Limit Orders may be collared on arrival, in addition to
having any remaining balance likewise subject to the Trading Collar
(the latter point is already explicitly stated in the current rule).
The Exchange would continue to apply Trade Collar Protection to the
balance of Marketable Orders consistent with the current Rule (as
discussed below).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A). Because the Exchange is
proposing to move the existing text (albeit modified) into a sub-
paragraph, it proposes to re-number the paragraph in a manner
consistent with the rest of the current rule. See id. Also,
consistent with the clarification that Trade Collar Protection
applies to incoming Marketable Orders, the Exchange proposes to
modify and expand the application of paragraph (a)(4). See proposed
Rule 6.60-O(a)(4).
    \6\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(B). Because the Exchange is
proposing to move the existing text (albeit slightly modified) into
a sub-paragraph, it proposes to re-number the paragraph in a manner
consistent with the rest of the current rule. See id. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to modify this provision to refer solely to
``Marketable Orders'' (and to remove now extraneous reference to
marketable Limit Orders), as the Marketable Orders is already
defined in proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A). See proposed Rule 6.60-
O(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(3) provides that Trade Collar Protection
does not apply to order types that have contingencies, namely, IOC,
NOW, AON and FOK orders (the ``Contingent Order Type Provision''). The
Exchange proposes to modify the Contingent Order Type Provision, which
currently indicates that such order types would receive an ``immediate
execution,'' to make clear that such incoming orders would ``receive an
execution, depending upon the availability of an execution pursuant to
the terms of those orders.'' \7\ The Exchange believes this proposed
change (i.e., the removal of the word ``immediate'') would more
accurately reflect current functionality in regards to the processing
of these contingent order types, insofar as such orders will only
``immediately'' execute if the contingency is satisfied. The Exchange
believes this proposed wording change would add clarity, transparency
and internal consistency to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(3). Because the listed
contingency orders are not subject to Trade Collar Protection, the
Exchange believes the current rule may refer to such orders
receiving an ``immediate execution'' to contrast the treatment of
orders that are subject to such protection--as such orders (under
the current rule) are ``not immediately executed.'' See Rule 6.60-
O(a)(1) and (a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(4) provides that when a Market Order is
subject to Trade Collar Protection pursuant to current paragraph
(a)(1)(i), the Exchange does not immediately execute or route such
orders and instead goes on to state how such orders are processed. The
Exchange proposes to modify this paragraph to make clear that it
relates to Marketable (as opposed to just Market) Orders as well as to
clarify that the ``execution and/or routing'' of such orders would be
limited by the

Exchange as discussed below, as opposed to stating that they would not
``immediately execute or route'' which modifications are consistent
with the changes to Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A) (and consistent with existing
functionality). The Exchange also proposes to make clear that this
provision relates to ``incoming'' Marketable Orders as opposed to the
balance thereof.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4). See also proposed Rule 6.60-
O(a)(1)(A) (making clear that incoming marketable Limit Order are
subject to Trading Collar Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the Rule to specify that
collared orders will be assigned a ``collar execution price,'' which
price depends upon the order type (Market or Limit) and whether (when
the order arrives) the Exchange is already in receipt of another order
being collared.\9\ Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(A) covers collared Market
Orders to buy (sell), which would not immediately execute or route, but
would be ``displayed at a price equal to the NBB (NBO) plus (minus) one
Trading Collar.'' As proposed, a Market Order to buy (sell) ``received
when there is not already a collared order to buy (sell)'' would be
``assigned a collar execution price'' (as opposed to being
``displayed'') equal to the NBB (NBO) plus (minus) one Trading
Collar.\10\ The Exchange proposes to replace ``displayed'' as used in
the current rule with ``assigned a collar execution price'' because,
once collared (and consistent with current functionality), the order
would be eligible to immediately execute against available interest
before its price is displayed. Examples illustrating this (existing)
functionality are included at the end of the description of these
proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4). The Exchange also proposes
to make a conforming change to update the cross-reference from Rule
6.60-O(a)(1)(i) to proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A). Also, current Rule
6.60-O(a)(4)(C)(i)-(iii) address scenarios when an order arrives
while another order is being collared, but the proposed rule text
adds clarity regarding current functionality and addresses
enhancements to the functionality since the rule was adopted.
    \10\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B). As discussed further
below, proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(A) would provide that ``[a] Market
Order to buy (sell) received when there is already a collared order
to buy (sell) will join that collared order and be processed
consistent with paragraphs (a)(4)(C)--(a)(6),'' which reflects
current functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes an exception to the processing
of incoming Market Orders to buy (sell) that arrive when the NBB (NBO)
is zero (the ``Zero NBBO Collar Exception''). Specifically, a Market
Order to buy entered when the NBB is $0.00 would be assigned a collar
execution price equal to the NBB (i.e., $0.00) plus one Trading Collar
to ensure it is collared to avoid executing at an erroneous price;
whereas, a Market Order to sell entered when the NBO is $0.00, would be
rejected as there is no market for the incoming order.\11\ The Exchange
believes the Zero NBBO Collar Exception would improve the operation of
Trading Collars when the prevailing market is zero (indicating market
dislocation) at the time an incoming Market Order arrives. Absent the
proposed Zero NBBO Collar Exception, a Market Order to buy (sell) that
arrives when the NBB (NBO) is zero would trade based on the last sale
price, if any; if there is no last sale price, the order would trade at
the contra-side NBBO which may result in a bad execution price. The
proposal to collar an incoming buy order when the NBB is zero is
consistent with the handling of other collared orders to buy when the
NBB is not zero (i.e., the collared order is assigned a collar
execution price equal to the NBB plus one Trading Collar).\12\ In
regards to the proposal to reject (as opposed to collar) incoming sell
orders when the NBO is zero, the Exchange believes this change in
functionality is necessary because any attempt to collar such an order
would result in a negative number. In addition, the Exchange has
observed that it is extremely uncommon to have a no (zero) offer
situation and believes it could be indicative of unstable market
conditions. To avoid such orders receiving bad executions in times of
market dislocation, the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to
reject such orders. Thus, the Zero NBBO Exception helps maintain fair
and orderly markets. An example illustrating this new functionality is
included at the end of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B)(i), (ii).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B) (providing, in relevant
part, that a Market Order to buy received when there is not already
a collared order to buy is assigned a collar execution price equal
to the NBB plus one Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because the rule has been updated to clarify that
(consistent with current functionality) incoming marketable Limit
Orders may be collared (i.e., proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A)), the
Exchange proposes to further update the rule to address how such orders
would be collared, depending upon whether the Exchange is already in
receipt of a collared order. Specifically, as proposed (and consistent
with current functionality), modified Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C) would
clarify that when the incoming collared order is a marketable Limit
Order to buy (sell) and there is no other order already being collared,
the order would be ``assigned a collar execution price equal to the NBO
(NBB).'' If, however, a marketable Limit Order arrives when there is
already an order being collared, it would join that collared order and
be processed consistent with proposed paragraph (a)(6)(B), which is
discussed below.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the rule regarding executions
of collared orders. The current rule provides that the Exchange would
``execute or route the collared order to buy (sell) against any contra-
interest priced within one Trading Collar above (below) the displayed
price of the collared order.'' \14\ The Exchange proposes to clarify
that a collared order to buy (sell) would ``trade against any contra-
side interest priced equal to its collar execution price or at prices
within one Trading Collar above (below) the collar execution price
(`the Collar Range').'' \15\ Consistent with proposed Rule 6.60-
O(a)(4)(B),(C), the Exchange proposes to refer to the ``collar
execution price'' (as opposed to a display price) as the collared order
seeks an execution before it would be displayed, thus this change
clarifies existing functionality. In addition, the Exchange believes
that clarifying that the collared order would execute with contra-side
interest priced within a Collar Range (i.e., equal to, and up to one
Trading Collar above (below) the collar execution price), provides more
specificity than the current language, which states only that such
order would execute against interest ``within one Trading Collar'' of
its price. The Exchange believes these proposed changes, which describe
current functionality, would add clarity, transparency, and internal
consistency to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B).
    \15\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(D). The proposed rule does
not repeat the concept of a collared order being executed or routed
in paragraph (a)(4)(D), because this concept is already covered in
proposed paragraph (a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (a)(4)(E) to the Rule to
codify existing functionality and make clear that the Exchange would
cancel a Market Order, or the balance thereof, that has been collared
pursuant to proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(1)(A) or (B) if, after exhausting
trading opportunities within the Collar Range, the Exchange determines
there are no quotes on the Exchange and/or no interest on another
market (``Available Interest''). The absence of Available Interest,
such as a Market Maker quote in the series, means that the Exchange
would have no reliable price framework within which to evaluate the
Market Order. Therefore, the Exchange believes that cancellation

of the Market Order would be appropriate and in the best interest of
investors.
    Regarding the treatment of the balance of a Marketable Order (i.e.,
a Market Order or a marketable Limit Order) that is subject to Trade
Collar Protection, the Exchange proposes to clarify and update the
collar functionality, including making clear when and at what price the
collared order is first displayed. Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(5) provides
that ``[w]hen the balance of a partially executed Marketable Order'' is
subject to Trade Collar Protection, such balance ``will be displayed at
the last sale price.'' Further, ``[i]f there is an opportunity for
trading within a Trading Collar above (below) the last sale price, the
balance of the buy (sell) order will be displayed at the NBB (NBO)
established at the time of the initial execution.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace the existing text and replace it
with new rule text titled ``Display of collared orders.'' Pursuant to
new Rule 6.60-O(a)(5), a Market Order that does not trade on arrival
will be displayed at its collar execution price whereas the display
price of the balance of a partially executed Marketable Order collared
pursuant to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(B) of the Rule, depends upon
eligible contra-side interest.\17\ Specifically, per proposed paragraph
(a)(5)(A) of the Rule, if the collared order has traded against all
contra-side interest within the Collar Range, the order would be
displayed at the most recent execution price.\18\ This proposed
provision sets forth the same concept as the first sentence of current
paragraph (a)(5), except that it specifies that the order would be
displayed at the most recent execution price (i.e., last sale price)
only after it has exhausted trading opportunities within the Collar
Range (whereas the current rule is silent on this fact, though it may
be inferred given that the second sentence of the current Rule
discusses the display price when trading opportunities have not been
exhausted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5). The Exchange notes that the
proposed new rule does not include the last sentence of current
paragraph (a)(5) which provides that the balance of Marketable
Orders that are subject to Trade Collar Protection are processed in
the same fashion as incoming collared orders per current paragraph
(a)(4). The Exchange believes that this language would be redundant
of proposed paragraph (a)(1)(A)-(B), which makes clear what is
deemed a ``collared order'' as well as proposed rule (a)(4)(A)-(E),
which describes how such orders are processed.
    \18\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per proposed paragraph (a)(5)(B) of the Rule, if, however, there is
contra-side interest priced within one Trading Collar of the most
recent execution price, the order to buy (sell) would be displayed at
the higher (lower) of its assigned collar execution price or the best
execution price of the order that is both within the Collar Range and
at least one Trading Collar away from the best priced contra-side
trading interest (i.e., lowest sell interest for collared buy orders/
highest buy interest for collared sell orders).\19\ This proposed text
modifies the second sentence of current paragraph (a)(5) by replacing
reference to the NBBO at the time of initial execution with the concept
of the collar execution price and clarifying that the display price
would be the better of the collar execution price or keyed off of the
best price contra-side interest. The Exchange believes this modified
provision, which reflects current functionality, provides greater
granularity regarding the circumstances under which the price of a
collared order is first displayed and how that price is determined,
which additional clarity and transparency is beneficial to the
investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to add rule text to new
paragraph (a)(5) of the Rule to make clear that collared orders would
be displayed at the Minimum Price Variation (``MPV'') for the option,
pursuant to Rule 6.72-O (Trading Differentials) which rule sets forth
the minimum quoting increments for options traded on the Exchange.\20\
The Exchange believes adding this information to the Rule add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C) sets forth scenarios that would
trigger the ``redisplay'' of a collared order. Consistent with the
foregoing changes, the Exchange proposes to update this section with
conforming changes for consistency, with regard to current
functionality, and modify the rule to adopt new functionality. First,
the Exchange proposes to re-number this paragraph as (a)(6), title it
``Repricing of collared orders,'' and make clear that the Exchange
would ``assign a new collar execution price'' to (as opposed to
redisplay) the collared order upon the happening of one of the listed
scenarios (as modified below).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6). Consistent with this
change, the Exchange also proposes to renumber the existing
subparagraphs to proposed (a)(6) as (A)-(C) and existing paragraphs
(a)(4)(D) and (a)(6) as proposed paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8),
respectively. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The first scenario under the current rule provides that
``an update to the NBBO (based on another market or a quote on the
Exchange or a Limit Order on the Exchange priced one Trading Collar or
less away from the collared order) that improves the same side of the
market as the collared order will result in the collared order being
redisplayed at the new NBB (for buy orders) or NBO (for sell orders)''
\22\ Consistent with the foregoing proposed rule text changes, the
Exchange proposes to modify this provision to replace the words
``redisplayed at'' with ``assigned a new collar execution price equal
to'' the NBB (for buy orders) or NBO (for sell orders), and to add to
the end of this provision that the repriced orders would be ``processed
at the updated collar execution price consistent with paragraphs
(a)(4)(D) and (a)(5) above.'' \23\ The ``new collar execution price''
reflects the updated price at which the collared order is eligible to
trade based on changes in the market. This concept is consistent with
the current rule except that the updated price is not (re)displayed
until it has exhausted all trading opportunities within the Collar
Range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C)(i).
    \23\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(A). The Exchange also
proposes to add a semi-colon to separate the two clauses regarding
what constitutes a market update event that updates the NBBO (i.e.,
that it must be ``based on another market or a quote on the
Exchange; or a Limit Order on the Exchange priced one Trading Collar
or less away from the collared order''). See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The second scenario under the current rule provides that a
Marketable Order to buy (sell) on the same side of the market as the
collared order or a Limit Order to buy (sell) on the same side of the
market as the collared order and priced greater than one Trading Collar
above (below) the displayed price of the collared order will itself
become subject to Trade Collar Protection and will result in the
collared order and the Limit Order being displayed at one Trading
Collar above (below) the displayed price of the collared order.\24\ The
Exchange proposes to modify this rule to remove reference to
``Marketable Orders to buy (sell) on the same side of the market as the
collared orders,'' because the functionality has been updated such that
a Market Order received when there is already a collared order would
join that collared order (rather than be subject to a separate
collar).\25\ This proposed modification would make clear that this

scenario is applicable solely to marketable Limit Orders received when
there is already an order being collared. Consistent with the proposed
textual changes to the first scenario, the Exchange likewise proposes
to modify this provision to replace the words ``displayed at a price''
with ``assigned a new collar execution price'' one Trading Collar above
or below the displayed price of the collared order, as applicable (at
which new price it will be eligible to trade), and to add to the end of
this provision that the repriced orders would be ``processed at the
updated collar execution price consistent with paragraphs (a)(4)(D) and
(a)(5) above.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C)(ii). Consistent with the Rule,
this provision excludes IOC Orders, AON Orders, FOK Orders and NOW
Orders. See id.; see also Rule 6.60-O(a)(3).
    \25\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(A).
    \26\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The third scenario under the current rule provides that
``upon the expiration of one second, the collared order to buy (sell)
will redisplay at a price one Trading Collar above (below) the
displayed price of the collared order.'' \27\ The Exchange proposes to
modify this provision to add ``and absent an update to the NBBO'' after
language regarding the expiration of one second to distinguish this
scenario from the first scenario where a change in the market (i.e., an
update to the NBBO) caused the collared order to reprice (and
potentially redisplay). Also, consistent with the other two scenarios,
the Exchange proposes to modify this provision to replace the words
``redisplay at a price'' with ``assigned a new collar execution price''
one Trading Collar above or below the ``current displayed price'' of
the collared order, as applicable, and to add to the end of this
provision that the repriced orders would be ``processed at the update
collar execution price consistent with paragraphs (a)(4)(D) and (a)(5)
above.'' \28\ Thus, the collared order to buy (sell) would be eligible
to trade at a price for a period of one second, but if market
conditions prevent it from trading, the order will improve or tick up
(down) and be assigned a new collar execution price one Trading Collar
above (below) the current display price. The Exchange proposes to
clarify the functionality under this (third) scenario, however to
provide that ``if the collared order is a Market Order to sell that has
reached $0.00, it will not reprice but will be posted in the
Consolidated Book at its MPV (e.g., $0.01 or $0.05),'' because an order
may never be posted for lower than its MPV--and the alternative to
holding the order at the MPV would be to cancel it.\29\ The Exchange
believes this proposed rule text, which reflects current functionality,
would allow the collared order an opportunity for an execution (rather
than being cancelled) and adds transparency and internal consistency to
Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C)(iii).
    \28\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C).
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify the rule text regarding the
priority of collared orders. Current Rule 6.60-O(a)(6) states that
``[a]ll orders for which Trade Collar Protection prevents immediate
execution will be ranked based on time priority (with all other orders
for which Trade Collar Protection prevents immediate execution).''
Because the current rule text does not make clear that such collared
orders, like other non-collared orders, will be processed at each price
in time priority, the Exchange proposes to clarify that such orders
would be ``processed in accordance with Rule 6.76-O.Order Ranking and
Display--OX.'' \30\ This proposed change to reflect current
functionality and adds clarity, transparency and internal consistency
to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT OF COLLARED ORDERS 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Exchange notes that the processing of collared orders
in examples 1-3 reflect current processing, but that, as noted
above, the Exchange has clarified the rule text used to describe the
processing (i.e., reference to ``collar execution price'' versus
``display price'' as well as removing reference to ``last sale'' as
the benchmark for determining display price and adding specificity
about available trading interest impacting display price
determination--which may or may not be the same as the last sale
price, see, e.g., Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1: Market Order Received When No Other Orders Being Collared
32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX: 0 x 0-1.50 x 100 (wide market)
LMM 100 x 0.25-1.60 x 100
Cust1 Buy Market x 100

    Results:

 Cust1 is assigned a collar execution price of 0.50 (i.e., the
NBB (0.25), plus one Trading Collar, which is 0.25 because the NBB is
less than $2.00) \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B) (regarding collar
execution price for Market Orders) and (a)(2)(A)(i) (regarding
Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Each second that elapses in which Cust1 does not trade (and
absent changes to the NBBO), the order receives a new collar execution
price and is displayed at each successive collar--0.50, then 0.75, then
1.00 \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C) (regarding assignment of
new collar execution price every one second that the order does not
trade as seconds elapse and NBBO does not change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Once the order ticks up to receive a collar execution price of
1.25, it trades with BOX at 1.50 (as 1.50 is within the Collar Range,
i.e., contra-side interest within one Trading Collar above the collar
execution price--resulting in a permissible execution range of 1.25 up
to and including 1.50) \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(D) (regarding Collar Range).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2: Limit Order Received When No Other Orders Being Collared
\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX: 100 x 1.50 x 1.60 x 100
T2 Sell 100 @ 1.70
T3 Sell 100 @ 1.80
T4 Sell 100 @ 2.95
T1 Buy 1000 @ 3.00

    Results:

 T1 is assigned a collar execution price of 1.60 (i.e., the
NBO) and is eligible to trade with interest within its Collar Range
(i.e., contra-side interest within one Trading Collar (0.25) above the
collar execution price--resulting in a permissible execution range of
1.60 up to and including 1.85) \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C) (regarding collar
execution price for limit orders) and (a)(4)(D) (regarding Collar
Range) and (a)(2)(A)(i) (regarding Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] T1 routes 100 to BOX and trades at 1.60
    [cir] T1 trades 100 with T2 at 1.70
    [cir] T1 trades 100 with T3 at 1.80
 Since T1 has traded with all eligible interest within the
collar range, the balance of T1 (i.e.. the remaining 700) is assigned a
collar execution price of 1.80 (the most recent execution price), is
displayed at that price and is eligible to trade within the Collar
Range \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(A). See also Rule 6.60-
O(a)(5)(A) (regarding collared order that has traded against all
eligible interest in the collar range being displayed at the most
recent execution price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Each second that the T1 does not trade it receives a new
collar execution price and is displayed at each successive collar
(i.e., 2.05 and then ticks up based on $0.40 collar--because price/NBB
is over $2.00--to 2.45) \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C) (regarding assignment of
new collar execution price every one second that the order does not
trade as seconds elapse and NBBO does not change) and (a)(2)(A)(i)
(regarding Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Once at 2.85, T1 is eligible to trade within its Collar Range
and trades 100 with T4 at 2.95
 The balance of T1 (i.e., the remaining 600) is assigned a
collar execution price of 2.95, is displayed at that price and is
eligible to trade within the Collar Range \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See also Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(A) (regarding collared order
that has traded against all eligible interest in the collar range
being displayed at the most recent execution price).

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

 After one second, T1 is displayed at its limit price of 3.00
and will not be repriced/subject to further Trade Collar Protection
\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(7) (regarding a limit order not
being eligible to post beyond its limit price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 3: Limit Order Received When No Other Orders Being Collared
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MMQ 100 x 5.00-5.40 x 10 (NBBO)
BD1 Sell Limit Order 10 x 5.70
BD2 Sell Limit Order 10 x 5.95
BD3 Buy Limit Order 100 @6.00

    Results:

 BD3 is assigned a collar execution price of 5.40 (i.e., the
NBO) and is eligible to trade with interest within its Collar Range
(i.e., contra-side interest within one Trading Collar (0.40 because the
NBB does not exceed 5.00) above the collar execution price--resulting
in a permissible execution range of 5.40 up to and including 5.80)
resulting in the following executions:
    [cir] BD3 trades 10 with MMQ at 5.40
    [cir] BD3 trades 10 with BD1 at 5.70 \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C) (regarding collar
execution price for limit orders) and (a)(4)(D) (regarding Collar
Range) and (a)(2)(A)(ii) (regarding Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The balance of BD3 (i.e., the remaining 80) is displayed at
5.40 rather than the most recent execution price of 5.70 (``last
sale'') because there is contra-side interest priced within one Trading
Collar of the last sale (i.e., 5.95) \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(5)(B) (regarding display price
of partially executed collared order where there is contra-side
interesting within on Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     One second elapses, and BD3 receives a new collar
execution price of 5.90 (i.e., its collar execution price (5.40) plus
one Trading Collar (0.50)) and is eligible to trade with interest
within its Collar Range (i.e., contra-side interest within one Trading
Collar (0.50) above the collar execution price--resulting in a
permissible execution range of 5.90 up to and including 6.40) resulting
in the following execution:
    [cir] BD4 trades 10 with BD2 at $5.95 \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(C) (regarding collar
execution price for limit orders) and (a)(4)(D) (regarding Collar
Range) and (a)(2)(A)(ii) (regarding Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 4: Market Order Received When the NBB is Zero and No Other
Orders Being Collared (Illustrating the Proposed Zero NBBO Collar
Exception) 46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX: 0 x 0-1.50 x 100
Cust1 Buy Market Order x 100

    Result:

 Cust1 is assigned a collar execution price of 0.25 (i.e., the
NBB (0.00), plus one Trading Collar which is 0.25 because the NBB is
less than $2.00) \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(4)(B)(i). See also current and
proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Each second that Cust1 does not trade (and absent changes to
the NBBO), it receives a new collar execution price and is displayed at
each successive collar (i.e., 0.50, then 0.75, then 1.00) \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See proposed Rule 6.60-O(a)(6)(C) (regarding assignment of
new collar execution price every one second that the order does not
trade as seconds elapse and NBBO does not change) and (a)(2)(A)(i)
(regarding Trading Collar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Once the order ticks up to receive a collar execution price of
1.25, it seeks an execution within that collar range (i.e., 1.25-1.50)
and trades with BOX at 1.50.
* * * * *
Rule 6.65A-O: LULD Rule
    The Exchange proposes to update the Rule 6.65A-O, Limit-Up and
Limit-Down During Extraordinary Market Volatility, related to the Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS (``LULD'' or the ``LULD Rule''). The current rule
provides that the Exchange shall reject Market Orders, as defined in
Rule 6.62-O(a), entered when the underlying NMS stock is either in a
Limit State or a Straddle State (an ``LULD State'') and shall notify
OTP Holders of the reason for such rejection.\49\ The Exchange proposes
to add rule text to make clear that the Exchange, under existing
functionality, ``will cancel any Market Order that is a collared order
pursuant to Rule 6.60-O(a)'' if the underlying NMS stock enters an LULD
State and ``will notify OTP Holders of the reason for such
cancellation,'' as the current rule does not address this scenario.\50\
A market order would typically trade upon arrival, unless collared and
pending execution. The Exchange believes this proposed change would add
clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange rules as it
makes clear that, in addition to rejecting a Market Order received when
an underlying NMS stock is in an LULD State, the Exchange will likewise
cancel a resting Market Order if an underlying NMS stock enters an LULD
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Rule 6.65A-O(a)(1). The Exchange notes that other
exchanges provide for the cancellation or rejection of market orders
in such circumstance. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.3A(b)(1) (LULD rule
citing Rule 6.2 regarding order handling); CBOE Rule 6.2,
Interpretations and Policies .07 (providing that if the underlying
security for an option class is in an LULD State when the class
moves to opening rotation, then all market orders in the system will
be cancelled, except market orders that are considered limit orders
pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.13(b)(vi) and entered the previous trading
day). See also NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') Ch. V, Sec. 3(d)
(providing that if, after the opening, the underlying NMS stock for
an option class is in an LULD State, NOM will reject market orders
and notify its participants of the reason for such rejection).
    \50\ See proposed Rule 6.65A-O(a)(1). For consistency, the
Exchange proposes the technical change of replacing ``shall'' with
``will'' each time in appears in this rule. See proposed Rule 6.65A-
O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the Zero NBBO Collar exception in a
Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days following the
approval date of this rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \51\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\52\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange is proposing various changes that would
promote just and equitable principles of trade, because collared orders
would be handled in a fair and orderly manner, as described above. The
various modifications and clarifications, many of which are consistent
with current functionality, are intended to improve the rule overall by
adding more specificity and transparency. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule changes would promote just and equitable principles
of trade as well as protect investors and the public interest by making
more clear what types of orders may be collared and how such orders are
processed, including the circumstances that determine collar execution
price(s) and display price(s).
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule assists with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets by clarifying and enhancing the
operation of the Trading Collar functionality--which is designed to
mitigate the risk of orders sweeping through multiple price points and
executing at potentially erroneous prices--as the proposed rule would
continue to protect investors from receiving bad executions away from

prevailing market prices. The Exchange notes that Trading Collar
functionality is not new or novel and is available on other options
exchanges.\53\ The Exchange believes that the proposed changes that
codify existing functionality, including how incoming marketable Limit
Orders are collared and the cancellation of collared Market Orders--in
the absence of Available Interest or if an NMS stock enters an LULD
State--would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to
Exchange rules regarding the handling of orders accepted by the
Exchange (i.e., that such orders would be cancelled, not rejected) and
make them easier for market participants to navigate and comprehend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.13(b)(v) (setting forth its Hybrid
Trading System Automatic Execution Feature, which prevents the
execution of marketable orders if (a) the width of the NBB and NBO
is not within an ``acceptable price range'' (as determined by CBOE)
or (b) if an execution would follow a partial execution and would be
beyond an ``acceptable tick distance'' (as determined by CBOE), but
unlike Trade Collar Protection on the Exchange, CBOE does not
reprice (or redisplay) orders at narrowing prices. In addition, the
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') and NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') each have
identical rules (Chapter VI, Section 18(b)(1) (setting forth the
risk protection feature for quotes and orders, which prevents
executions (partial or otherwise) of orders beyond an ``acceptable
trade range'' (as calculated by the exchange) and when an order (or
quote) reaches the limits of the ``acceptable trade range'', it
posts for a period not to exceed one second and recalculated a new
``acceptable trade range'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposal to codify that the Exchange would cancel a
Market Order or the balance thereof that has been collared once it has
exhausted trading opportunities within its collar execution price plus/
minus one Trading Collar if there is no Available Interest would
protect investors from potentially erroneous executions because this
scenario means the Exchange would have no reliable price framework
within which to evaluate the collared orders. Thus, this proposal would
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to codify current
functionality regarding a collared order that is a Market Order to sell
that has reached $0.00 such that the Exchange post the order at its MPV
(e.g., $0.01 or $0.05) would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
because an order may never be posted for lower than its MPV--and the
alternative to holding the order at the MPV would be to cancel it. The
Exchange believes the proposed clarification of how such orders are
handled provides the collared order an opportunity for an execution
(rather than being cancelled) and adds transparency and internal
consistency to Exchange rules.
    The Exchange likewise believes that the proposed enhancements to
the Trading Collar functionality--the Zero NBBO Collar Exception--
likewise would prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system. In particular, the proposed Zero NBBO Collar Exception
would improve the operation of the Trading Collar when the prevailing
market is zero (indicating market dislocation) at the time an incoming
Market Order arrives. The Exchange believes the Zero NBBO Collar
Exception would improve the operation of Trading Collars when the
prevailing market is zero (indicating market dislocation) at the time
an incoming Market Order arrives. Absent the proposed Zero NBBO Collar
Exception, a Market Order to buy (sell) that arrives when the NBB (NBO)
is zero would trade based on the last sale price, if any; if there is
no last sale price, the order would trade at the contra-side NBBO which
may result in a bad execution price. In regards to the proposal to
reject (as opposed to collar) incoming sell orders when the NBO is
zero, the Exchange believes this change in functionality is necessary
because any attempt to collar such an order would result in a negative
number. In addition, the Exchange has observed that it is extremely
uncommon to have a no (zero) offer situation and believes it could be
indicative of unstable market conditions. To avoid such orders
receiving bad executions in times of market dislocation, the Exchange
believes it would be appropriate to reject such orders. Thus, the Zero
NBBO Exception helps maintain fair and orderly markets.
LULD
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate that the Exchange cancel a
Market Order that is collared when an NMS stock enters an LULD State
because when the underlying NMS stock enters an LULD State, there may
not be a reliable underlying reference price, there may be a wide bid/
ask quotation differential in the option, and there may be less
liquidity in the options markets. Thus, allowing a collared Market
Order to execute (as opposed to cancel) in such circumstances could
lead to executions at unintended prices (i.e., inferior to the NBBO),
and could add to volatility in the options markets during times of
extraordinary market volatility. The Exchange believes that this
current treatment of collared market orders, and the proposal to
explicitly state this treatment in the rule text, would provide
certainty to the treatment of Market Orders during these times and add
clarity and transparency to Exchange rules, thus promoting just and
equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to, and
perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system. The proposed rule amendments would also provide internal
consistency within Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and
the investing public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate
and comprehend. The Exchange notes that the proposed cancellation of an
options order if the underlying NMS security is in an LULD State is not
new or novel and is available on other options exchanges that offer
collar functionality similar to the Exchange's.\54\ However, the
Exchange believes that the rules of these other exchanges do not
specifically contemplate the underlying security entering an LULD state
while a market order is resting on the book, because such orders
typically execute on arrival. The Exchange nonetheless believes that
the handling such orders, as well as the proposed rule clarification,
adds transparency and specificity to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See supra note 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Changes
    The Exchange notes that the proposed organizational and non-
substantive changes to the rule text would provide clarity and
transparency to Exchange rules and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system. The
proposed rule amendments would also provide internal consistency within
Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and the investing
public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and comprehend.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes
the proposal provides

clarity (including defining the collar execution price) and enhancement
to the Trading Collars that provide market participants with protection
from anomalous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
    The proposed enhancements to the Trading Collars (i.e., the Zero
NBBO Collar Exception) would improve the operation of the Trading
Collars thereby further protecting investors against the execution of
orders at erroneous prices. As such, the proposal does not impose any
burden on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the
proposed enhancements may foster more competition. Specifically, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues. The Exchange's
proposed rule change would enhance its ability to compete with other
exchanges that already offer similar trading collar functionality.\55\
Thus, the Exchange believes that this type of competition amongst
exchanges is beneficial to the market place as a whole as it can result
in enhanced processes, functionality, and technologies. The Exchange
further believes that because the proposed rule change would be
applicable to all OTP Holders it would not impose any burden on intra-
market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSEArca-2019-58 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-NYSEArca-2019-58. 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-NYSEArca-2019-58 and should be submitted
on or before September 25, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19001 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43732]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13133-000]

Division Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 21, 2008.
    On February 25, 2008, Division Canyon Hydro, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Division Canyon Pump Storage
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Division Canyon, in Elko County,
Nevada.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of: (1) A lower
gravity dam 180 feet in height, with a crest length of 810 feet, and a
hydraulic head of 160 feet, and an upper gravity dam 260 feet in
height, with a crest length of 1,800 feet and a hydraulic head of 240
feet, (2) a proposed upper reservoir having a surface area of 75 acres,
with a storage capacity of 4,400 acre-feet and a normal water surface
elevation of 7,200 feet mean sea level (msl), (3) a proposed lower
reservoir having a surface area of 150 acres, with storage capacity of
6,500 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation of 6,000 feet msl,
(4) a 228-inch-diameter steel penstock approximately 16,200 feet long,
(5) a proposed powerhouse containing six generating units having a
total installed capacity of 500 megawatts, (6) a switchyard, (7) a 115
kV transmission line approximately 25.4 miles in length, and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate
approximately 1,480 gigawatt hours annually, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel K. Dygert, COO, Carrus Land Systems,
LLC, 1047 S. 100 W., Ste. 210, Logan, UT 84321,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr.
Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,
(208) 745-0834.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications 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 the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13133) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17148 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51404-51406]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19851]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92906; File No. SR-Phlx-2021-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Expiration Date of the Temporary Amendments Concerning Video Conference
Hearings

September 9, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 31, 2021, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the expiration date of the
temporary amendments in SR-Phlx-2020-53 from August 31, 2021, to
December 31, 2021.\4\ The proposed rule change would not make any
changes to the text of the Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the Exchange seeks to provide additional temporary relief
from the rule requirements identified in this proposed rule change
beyond December 31, 2021, the Exchange will submit a separate rule
filing to further extend the temporary extension of time. The
amended Exchange rules will revert to their original form at the
conclusion of the temporary relief period and any extension thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to continue to harmonize Exchange Rule
General 3, Section 16 with recent changes by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to its Rule 1015 in response to
the COVID-19 global health crisis and the corresponding need to
restrict in-person activities.\5\ The Exchange originally filed
proposed rule change SR-Phlx-2020-53, which allows the Exchange Review
Council (``ERC'') to conduct hearings in connection with appeals of
Membership Application Program decisions, on a temporary basis, by
video conference, if warranted by the current COVID-19-related public
health risks posed by an in-person hearing. In April 2021, the Exchange
filed a proposed rule change, SR-Phlx-2021-027, to extend the
expiration date of the temporary amendments in SR-Phlx-2020-53 from
April 30, 2021, to August 31, 2021.\6\ While there are signs of

improvement, much uncertainty remains for the coming months. The
emergence of the Delta variant, dissimilar vaccination rates throughout
the United States, and the uptick in transmissions in many locations
indicate that COVID-19 remains an active and real public health
concern.\7\ Based on its assessment of current COVID-19 conditions and
the lack of a clear timeframe for a sustained and widespread abatement
of COVID-19-related health concerns and corresponding restrictions,\8\
the Exchange has determined that there is a continued need for
temporary relief for several months beyond August 31, 2021.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend the expiration date of the
temporary rule amendments in SR-Phlx-2020-53 from August 31, 2021, to
December 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92685 (August 17,
2021), No. 92685 (August 17, 2021), 86 FR 47169 (August 23, 2021)
(SR-FINRA-2021-019) (``FINRA Filing''). The Exchange notes that the
FINRA Filing also proposed to temporarily amend FINRA Rules 9261,
9524, and 9830, which govern hearings in connection with appeals of
disciplinary actions, eligibility proceedings, and temporary and
permanent cease and desist orders. The Exchange's Rules 9261, 9524,
and 9830 incorporate by reference The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC rules,
which are the subject of a separate filing. See SR-NASDAQ-2021-067
(August 30, 2021). Therefore, the Exchange is not proposing to adopt
that aspect of the FINRA Filing.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91766 (May 4, 2021),
86 FR 25014 (May 10, 2021) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2021-027); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 90758 (December 21, 2020), 85 FR 85782
(December 29, 2020) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
File No. SR-Phlx-2020-053).
    \7\ For example, President Joe Biden on July 29, 2021, announced
several measures to increase the number of people vaccinated against
COVID-19 and to slow the spread of the Delta variant, including
strengthening safety protocols for federal government employees and
contractors. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-announce-new-actions-to-get-more-americans-vaccinated-and-slow-the-spread-of-the-delta-variant/.
    \8\ For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
on July 27, 2021, began recommending that fully vaccinated people
wear a mask in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or
high transmission and noted that fully vaccinated people might
choose to wear a mask regardless of the level of transmission,
particularly if they are immunocompromised or at increased risk for
severe disease from COVID-19. See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html. Also, several
cities, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Haven and San
Francisco, have recently reinstated their mask mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in SR-Phlx-2020-53, the Exchange also relies on COVID-
19 data and criteria to determine whether the current public health
risks presented by an in-person hearing may warrant a hearing by video
conference. Based on that data and criteria, the Exchange does not
believe the COVID-19-related health concerns necessitating this relief
will meaningfully subside by August 31, 2021, and has determined that
there will be a continued need for this temporary relief for several
months beyond that date. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend
the expiration date of the temporary rule amendments originally set
forth in SR-Phlx-2020-53 from August 31, 2021, to December 31, 2021.
The extension of these temporary amendments allowing for specified ERC
hearings to proceed by video conference will allow the Exchange's
critical adjudicatory functions to continue to operate effectively in
these extraordinary circumstances--enabling the Exchange to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets--while also protecting the health and safety of hearing
participants.
    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so the Exchange can implement the proposed rule
change immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by providing greater harmonization between the Exchange rules
and FINRA rules of similar purpose,\11\ resulting in less burdensome
and more efficient regulatory compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, which extends the expiration date of the
temporary amendments to the Exchange rules set forth in SR-Phlx-2020-
53, will continue to aid the Exchange's efforts to timely conduct
hearings in connection with its core adjudicatory functions. Given the
current and frequently changing COVID-19 conditions and the uncertainty
around when those conditions will see meaningful, widespread and
sustained improvement, without this relief allowing ERC hearings to
continue to proceed by video conference, the Exchange might be required
to postpone some or almost all hearings indefinitely. The Exchange must
be able to perform its critical adjudicatory functions in order to
fulfill its statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain
fair and orderly markets. As such, this relief is essential to the
Exchange's ability to fulfill its statutory obligations and allows
hearing participants to avoid the serious COVID-19-related health and
safety risks associated with in-person hearings.
    Among other things, this relief will allow the ERC to timely
provide members, disqualified individuals and other applicants an
approval or denial of their applications. As set forth in detail in SR-
Phlx-2020-53, this temporary relief allowing ERC hearings to proceed by
video conference accounts for fair process considerations and will
continue to provide fair process while avoiding the COVID-19-related
public health risks for hearing participants. Accordingly, the proposed
rule change extending this temporary relief is in the public interest
and consistent with the Act's purpose.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the temporary proposed rule
change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As set forth in
SR-Phlx-2020-53, the proposed rule change is intended solely to extend
temporary relief necessitated by the continued impacts of the COVID-19
outbreak and the related health and safety risks of conducting in-
person activities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will prevent unnecessary impediments to its operations, including its
critical adjudicatory processes, and its ability to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets that would otherwise result if the temporary amendments
were to expire on August 31, 2021.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has
indicated that the proposed rule change to extend the expiration date
will continue to prevent unnecessary impediments to its operations,
including its critical adjudicatory processes, and its ability to
fulfill its statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain
fair and orderly markets that would otherwise result if the temporary
amendments were to expire on August 31, 2021.\16\ Importantly,
extending the relief provided in SR-Phlx-2020-53 immediately upon
filing and without a 30-day operative delay will allow the Exchange to
continue critical adjudicatory and review processes in a reasonable and
fair manner and meet its critical investor protection goals, while also
following best practices with respect to the health and safety of its
employees.\17\ The Commission also notes that this proposal extends
without change the temporary relief previously provided by SR-Phlx-
2020-53.\18\ As proposed, the changes would be in place through
December 31, 2021 and the amended rules will revert back to their
original state at the conclusion of the temporary relief period and, if
applicable, any extension thereof.\19\ For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay for this
proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ See supra Item II.
    \17\ See FINRA Filing, 86 FR at 47171 (noting the same in
granting FINRA's request to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
SR-FINRA-2021-019 would become operative immediately upon filing).
    \18\ See supra note 6.
    \19\ See supra note 4. As noted above, the Exchange states that
if it requires temporary relief from the rule requirements
identified in this proposal beyond December 31, 2021, it may submit
a separate rule filing to extend the effectiveness of the temporary
relief under these rules.
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-Phlx-2021-49 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-Phlx-2021-49. 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; 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-Phlx-2021-49 and should be
submitted on or before October 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19851 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17711-17712]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0527; FRL-9134-5; EPA ICR Number 1066.06; OMB Control
Number 2060-0032]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate
Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0527, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, Mail Code: 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7021; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 30, 2009 (74 FR 38004), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0527, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1066.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0032.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Ammonium
Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP), were
proposed on February 4, 1980, and promulgated on November 12, 1980.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an initial
notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are
required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 62
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Ammonium sulfate manufacturing
plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 247.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $23,183 in labor costs exclusively.
There are neither capital/startup costs nor operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an apparent increase of one hour
in the total labor hours for this ICR. Total labor hours for this ICR
are 247 rather than 246 in the previous ICR, because the previous ICR
did not round labor hours up to the nearest whole number. There is no
change in the per-respondent labor hours in this ICR compared to the
previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations
have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to
change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the
respondents is very low, negative or non-existent. Therefore, the labor
hours in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents
and are reiterated (with a correction for rounding) in this ICR.

    There is an increase in both Respondent and Agency costs resulting
from labor rate increases from 2003 to 2009. This ICR uses 2009 labor
rates because burden and cost calculations in Tables 1 and 2 of this
ICR were expanded to include managerial and clerical labor rates, and
the previous ICR only provided a technical labor rate for 2003. This
ICR is therefore updated to present the most recent available labor
rates for each of the three labor categories.

    Dated: April 1, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-7877 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P