60231 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2002 / Notices II. Tentative Agenda The following outlines the tentative agenda of the 2Ð day meeting. 1. Introductions and new members. 2. Review of isoxaflutole registration and monitoring experiences. 3. EPA Office of Water and Office of Pesticide Program presentation and discussion, various topics including: 319 guidance development Re: How to Address Pesticides and Monitoring Standards Development/ Setting and Selection of Priority Compounds Resources for Surface Water Monitoring Responsibility for New Products versus Reregistrations. 4. Pesticide regulatory education program (PREP) report and content of revised pesticide/ water quality management plan. 5. Issue team reportÑ disposal label language project. 6. Disposal initiativesÑ national pesticide stewardship alliance mamagememt report. 7. Iodosulfuron registration reviewÑ issue team and EPA perspectives. 8. FY 2003 registration work plan (EPA). 9. Review ad hoc rosterÑ FY 2003 work group assignments. 10. Issue team reportÑ registration authority project. 11. EPA update on copper chromated arsenate (CCA) update. 12. State and regional reports. 13. Farm association and environment review training experience. 14. Office of Pesticide Program update 15. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance up date.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: September 18, 2002. Jay S. Ellenberger, Acting Director, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 02Ð 24225 Filed 9Ð 24Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0251; FRL– 7274– 4]

Availability of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability and starts a 60 day public comment period on the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) document for the pesticide active ingredient diazinon. The IRED represents EPA's formal regulatory assessment of the health and environmental data base of the subject chemical and presents the Agency's determination regarding which pesticidal uses are eligible for reregistration.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251, must be received on or before November 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Parsons, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460Ð 0001; telephone number: (703) 305Ð 5776; e mail address: parsons. laura@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticides users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305Ð 5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 16: 34 Sep 24, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25SEN1. SGM 25SEN1 60232 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2002 / Notices that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460Ð 0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0251. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1. D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

The Agency has issued an IRED for the pesticide active ingredient diazinon.

VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 16: 34 Sep 24, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25SEN1. SGM 25SEN1 60233 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2002 / Notices Under FIFRA, as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to reevaluate existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of diazinon is substantially complete. Taking into account both the risks and benefits of diazinon uses, the Agency has determined that with the adoption of all the mitigation measures recommended in the IRED, use of diazinon will not pose unreasonable adverse risks to people or the environment when used according to its currently approved labeling. Please note that this is only an interim decision. Upon the Agency's completion of its assessment of the cumulative risk posed by the organophosphates as a class, EPA will issue a final reregistration eligibility decision on pesticides containing diaizinon. All registrants of pesticide products containing diazinon will be sent the appropriate REDs, labeling requirements and product specific data requirements pending OMB approval of the diazinon Data Call In. The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely reregistration decisions and to involve the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing this IRED with a 60 day comment period. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendment to the IRED. EPA invites comment specifically on the use of the diazinon benefit assessments which can be found with the diazinon documents on the EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. All comments will be carefully considered by the Agency. If any comment significantly affects this IRED, EPA will amend the IRED by publishing the amendment in the Federal Register.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

The legal authority for this IRED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, `` the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration, '' before calling in product specific data on individual end use products, and either reregistering products or taking `` other appropriate regulatory action. '' List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: September 13, 2002. Lois Ann Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 02Ð 24231 Filed 9Ð 24Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0214; FRL– 7194– 1]

Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance fora Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0214, must be received on or before October 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0214 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Andrew Bryceland, Biochemical Pesticides Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305Ð 6928; e mail address; bryceland. andrew@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: Categories NAICS codes Examples of potentially affected entities Industry 111 Crop production 112 Animal production 311 Food manufacturing 32532 Pesticide manufacturing This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations, '' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules, '' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal RegisterÑ Environmental Documents. '' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0214. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 16: 34 Sep 24, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25SEN1. SGM 25SEN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18173-18180]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07635]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80429; File No. SR-ISE-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious
Errors

April 11, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 3, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') \3\ filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ ISE was renamed Nasdaq ISE, LLC in a rule change that became
operative on April 3, 2017. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80325 (March 29, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 720 (``Current Rule''),
entitled ``Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors'' by adding a new Supplementary Material .05
to Rule 720.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new,
harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related
to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving
erroneous options transactions.\4\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76232 (October 22,
2015), 80 FR 66063 (October 28, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to
identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to
complex orders \5\ and stock-option orders. The goal of the process
that the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize
rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options
transactions. As described below, the

Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges and the
Exchange have agreed to propose will provide transparency and finality
with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex
order and stock-option order transactions. Particularly, the proposed
changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S.
options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market,
protecting investors and protecting the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 722(a)(1) defining a complex order and (a)(2)
definition a stock-option order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and
reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges
that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally
adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe
will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result
from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An exchange that does not offer complex orders and stock-
option orders will not adopt these new provisions until such time as
the exchange offers complex orders and/or stock-option orders. The
Exchange currently trades complex orders and/or stock-option orders
pursuant to ISE Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach
consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under
which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions.
The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary
to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets,
where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than
adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market
participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth
below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure
between equities and options markets continue to support these
distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the
equities and option markets.
    Various general structural differences between the options and
equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of
risks for options market participants and are reflected in this
proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the
underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other
factors. Because options market participants can generally create new
open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is
created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are
generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This
pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the
options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from
the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the
hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitate
protection of transactions through adjustments rather than
nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.
    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on
liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In
contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the
U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique,
regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series
the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than
equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by
registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With
the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote
and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously,
the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded
a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes
that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades
given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to
protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued
liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options
markets. In addition to the factors described above, there are other
fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend
themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants
that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade
reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must
occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater
retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the
equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer
participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in
off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer
market making desks and internalizers.
    In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the
exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers--generally
Priority Customers--more favorable treatment in some circumstances.
Complex Orders and Stock-Option Orders
    As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of
the Current Rule to complex orders and stock-option orders.\7\ The
Proposed Rule deviates from the Current Rule only to account for the
unique qualities of complex orders and stock-option orders. The
Proposed Rule reflects the fact that complex orders can execute against
other complex orders or can execute against individual simple orders in
the leg markets. When a complex order executes against the leg markets
there may be different counterparties on each leg of the complex order,
and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price.
With regards to stock-option orders, the Proposed Rule reflects the
fact that stock-option orders contain a stock component that is
executed on a stock trading venue, and the Exchange may not be able to
ensure that the stock trading venue will adjust or nullify the stock
execution in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error. In order to
apply the Current Rule and account for the unique characteristics of
complex orders and stock-option orders, proposed Supplementary Material
.05 is split into three parts--paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In order for a complex order or stock-option order to
qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error at least one of the legs
must itself qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the
Current Rule. See Proposed Rule 720.05(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, proposed Supplementary Material .05(a) governs the review of
complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to
a complex order that executes against another complex order).\8\
Proposed Rule 720.05(a) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single
options series. A complex order may be received by the Exchange
electronically, and the legs of the complex order may have different
counterparties. For example, Market-Maker 1 may be quoting in ABC
calls and Market-Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A complex order
to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the quotes of
Market-Maker 1 and Market-Maker 2.

    If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least
one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1)
or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that
is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance
with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer
order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the
adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the complex order
must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic

error under the Current Rule in order for the complex order to receive
obvious or catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the Exchange is
notified (within the timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2) or
(d)(2)) of a complex order that is a possible obvious error or
catastrophic error, the Exchange will first review the individual legs
of the complex order to determine if one or more legs qualify as an
obvious or catastrophic error.\9\ If no leg qualifies as an obvious or
catastrophic error, the transaction stands--no adjustment and no
nullification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Because a complex order can execute against the leg market,
the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or
catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in
an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious
error the Exchange determines an individual options series was
executed against the leg of a complex order or stock-option order,
Proposed Rule 720.05 will govern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as
an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the
Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the
Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each
individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by
paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an
individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the
series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious
error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or the catastrophic
error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will
take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any
portion of Proposed Rule 720.05 will be adjusted. The execution
price of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or
catastrophic error will not be adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a complex order to the
Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2--Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls
and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1
is quoting the ABC calls $1.00-1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the
ABC puts $2.00-2.20. If the complex order executes against the quotes
of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and
sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error
reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to
the Theoretical Price \11\ of Leg 1 in order to determine if Leg 1 is
an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or a
catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule. The same
goes for Leg 2. The execution price of Leg 2 is compared to the
Theoretical Price of Leg 2. If it is determined that one or both of the
legs are an obvious or catastrophic error, then the leg (or legs) that
is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a Customer.\12\ Although a single-legged
execution that is deemed to be an obvious error under the Current Rule
is nullified whenever a Customer is involved in the transaction, the
Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for
the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers
often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions. When an
options transaction is nullified the hedging position can adversely
affect the liquidity provider. With regards to complex orders that
execute against individual legs, the additional rationale for adjusting
erroneous execution prices when possible is the fact that the
counterparty on a leg that is not executed at an obvious or
catastrophic error price cannot look at the execution price to
determine whether the execution may later be nullified (as opposed to
the counterparty on single-legged order that is executed at an obvious
error or catastrophic error price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 720(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical
Price is determined).
    \12\ See Rule 720(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule
720 as not including a broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or
Voluntary Professional Customer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is
determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of
the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in
(c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only
applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the
purposes of complex orders paragraph (a) of Supplementary Material .05
will supersede that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a
leg (or legs) of a complex order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs)
will be adjusted pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party
to the transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined
in subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a
Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the application of
paragraph (c)(4)(A).\13\ The Exchange notes that adjusting all market
participants is not unique or novel. When the Exchange determines that
a simple order execution is a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the
Current Rule, paragraph (d)(3) already provides for adjusting the
execution price for all market participants, including Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 720(c)(4)(A) (stating that any non-Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). The Size
Adjustment Modifier may also apply to the option leg of a stock-
option order that is adjusted pursuant to Proposed Rule 720.05(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed Rule 720.05(a)
provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least
one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction
will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price
higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the
Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). For
example, assume Customer enters a complex order to buy leg 1 and leg 2.
     Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for
leg 2 is $0.50-1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market
opened.
     A split-second prior to the execution of the complex order
a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at
$1.30, and the simple order enters the Exchange's book so that the BBO
is $.20-$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30.
     The complex order executes leg 1 against the Exchange's
best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of
$2.30.
     However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg
1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than
$0.75).\14\ Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg
2 was $0.50-1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 720(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg
1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1
qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the
Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger
than $0.25.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 720(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     According to Proposed Rule 720.05(a) Customers will also
be adjusted in accordance with Rule 720(c)(4)(A), which for a buy
transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted
by adding $0.15 \16\ to the Theoretical Price of $1.00. Thus, adjust
execution price for leg 1 would be $1.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 720(c)(4)(A).

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

     However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15
violates the limit price of the Customer's sell order on the simple
order book for leg 1, which was $1.30.
     Thus, the entire complex order transaction will be
nullified \17\ because the limit price of a Customer's sell order would
be violated by the adjustment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire
transaction is nullified. See Proposed Rule 720.05(a).
    \18\ The simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell
transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See
Rule 720(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the above example demonstrates, incoming complex orders may
execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a complex
order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution
price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order,
which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a
Customer. In contrast, Rule 720(d)(1) provides that if an adjustment
would result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy
transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution
will not be adjusted or nullified.\19\ If the adjustment of a complex
order would violate the complex order Customer's limit price, the
transaction will be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 720(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already
mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has
occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of complex
orders under Proposed Rule .05(a), if one of the legs of a complex
orders is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3),
all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table
set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a
complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be
nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for
buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Again, if any
leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is
nullified. Additionally, as is the case today, if it is determined that
a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the Exchange shall take action
as set forth in ISE Rule 720(e). A Member that submits an appeal
seeking the review of the Obvious Error Panel will be assessed a fee of
$5,000 for each ruling that is overturned. In addition, in instances
where the Exchange, on behalf of a Member requests a determination by
another market center that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the
Exchange will pass any resulting charges through to the relevant
Member.
    Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer
orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers
the same in the context of the complex orders that trade against the
leg market. When complex orders trade against the leg market, it is
possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that
would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the
counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will
later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating
Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide
additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market-Makers) with
respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including
comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction
will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the
Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a
Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in
an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or
individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a
Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the
adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected,
and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared
to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers
is more appropriate.
    Second, proposed Supplementary Material .05(b) governs the review
of complex orders that are executed against other complex orders.
Proposed Rule 720.05(b) provides:

    If a complex order executes against another complex order and at
least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph
(c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the
leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or
busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively,
so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for
the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction
was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote
table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the
complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National
Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount
shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex
order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For
purposes of Rule 720, the National Spread Market for a complex order
strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the
individual legs of the strategy.

    As described above in relation to Proposed Rule 720.05(a), the
first step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely
notification in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the
Current Rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as
an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands--no adjustment
and no nullification.
    Unlike Proposed Rule 720.05(a), the Exchange is also proposing to
compare the net execution price of the entire complex order package to
the National Spread Market (``NSM'') for the complex order
strategy.\20\ Complex orders are exempt from the order protection rules
of the options exchanges.\21\ Thus, depending on the manner in which
the systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a complex order can
execute without regard to the prices offered in the complex order books
or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations,
reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the
leg appear to be an obvious or catastrophic error, even though the net
execution price on the complex order is not an erroneous price. For
example, assume the Exchange receives a complex order to buy ABC calls
and sell ABC puts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00-2.00 and the
NBBO of Leg 2 is $5.00-7.00, then the NSM for a complex order to buy
Leg 1 and buy Leg 2 is $6.00-9.00. See ISE Rule 722. NSM is the
derived net market for a complex order package.
    \21\ See Rule 1901(b)(7). All options exchanges have the same
order protection rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for
ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-
4.50.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The complex order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts.
The Exchange's best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange's best
bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the complex order
strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls
for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to
sell the complex order strategy the Customer would receive a credit
of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts
for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO
for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the NSM is $2.00-3.00.
     If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts
at $4.50, the complex order Customer receives a net execution price of
$3.00 (debit), which

is the expected net execution price as indicated by the NSM offer of
$3.00.
    If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price
of the ABC calls or the $4.50 execution price of the ABC puts, the
execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the
execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net
execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to
determine if the complex order was executed at a truly erroneous price
is necessary. The same concern is not present when a complex order
executes against the leg market under Proposed Rule 720.03(a). The ISE
System permits a given leg of a complex order to trade through the NBBO
provided the complex order trades no more than a configurable amount
outside of the NBBO.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 722, which states,
``[p]rice limits for complex orders and quotes. (a) As provided in
paragraph (b)(3) above, the legs of a complex order may be executed
at prices that are inferior to the prices available on other
exchanges trading the same options series. Notwithstanding, the
System will not permit any leg of a complex order to trade through
the NBBO for the series by a configurable amount calculated as the
lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed $0.10, and (ii) a
percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as determined by the
Exchange on a class or series basis. A Member can also include an
instruction on a complex order entered on the complex order book
that each leg of the complex order is to be executed only at a price
that is equal to or better than the national best bid or offer for
the options series or any stock component, as applicable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to incorporate NSM, Rule 720.05(b) provides that if the
Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or
catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long
as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the complex order strategy just
prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the
amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the
Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is
higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order
strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to
at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the
Current Rule.
    For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an
obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the complex
order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-9.00.
The complex order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance
with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table
of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum
amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM
were instead $6.00-7.00 the complex order strategy would not qualify to
be adjusted or busted pursuant to .05(b)(i) because the width of the
NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the
execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to .05(b)(ii).
Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/
catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price
instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have
execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.
    Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or
catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00-7.00 (not a
wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the
Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire complex order
package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower) than the
offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount in the
table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule, then the complex order
qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)
or (d)(3) of the Current Rule. For example, if the NSM for the complex
order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-7.00
and the net execution price of the complex order transaction is $7.75,
the complex order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the execution price of
$7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the minimum amount according to the
table in paragraph (c)(1) when the price is above $5.00 but less than
$10.01) from the NSM offer of $7.00. Focusing on the NSM in this manner
will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses
on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the
individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of
the leg markets.
    Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is
generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because
liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset
options positions, the Exchange recognizes that complex orders
executing against other complex orders is similar to simple orders
executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to
review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may
have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of complex
orders that meet the requirements of Rule 720.05(b), the Exchange
proposes to apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph
(c)(4)(A) as is the case under .05(a)) and catastrophic errors in
accordance with (d)(3).
    Therefore, for purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule
720.05(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error
under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified,
unless a Member submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in
accordance with (c)(4)(C).\24\ For purposes of complex orders under
Proposed Rule 720.05(b), if one of the legs is determined to be a
catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other
requirements of Rule 720.05(b) are met, all market participants will be
adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again,
however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one party to a
complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be
nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for
buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Also, if any leg
of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 720(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in 200
or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the
course of 2 minutes or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, proposed Supplementary Material .05(c) governs stock-option
orders.
    Proposed Rule 720.05(c) provides:

    If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an
Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under
paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the
parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order
subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment
would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or
lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the
stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the
stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of
a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed,
the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the
parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).

    Similar to proposed Supplementary Material .05(a), an options leg
(or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as

an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for
the stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.
Also similar to Proposed Rule 720.05(a), if an options leg (or legs)
does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or
legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or
(d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a
Customer. Again, as with Proposed Rule 720.05(a), where at least one
party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will
nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if
adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).
    The stock leg of a stock-option order is not executed on the
Exchange; rather, the stock leg is sent to a stock trading venue for
execution. The Exchange is unaware of a mechanism by which the Exchange
can guarantee that the stock leg will be nullified by the stock trading
venue in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error on the Exchange.
Thus, in the event of the nullification of the option leg pursuant to
Proposed Rule 720.05(c), the Exchange will attempt to have the stock
leg nullified by the stock trading venue by either contacting the stock
trading venue or notifying the parties to the transaction that the
option leg is being nullified. The party or parties to the transaction
may ultimately need to contact the stock trading venue to have the
stock portion nullified. Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide
guidance that whenever the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg
of a stock-option order, the option will be nullified upon request of
one of the parties to the transaction or by an Official acting on their
own motion in accordance with paragraph (c)(3). There are situations in
which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option order, but the
stock leg cannot be executed. The Exchange proposes to provide guidance
that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be
executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one
of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's own motion.
Implementation Date
    In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt
rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness
of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative
date of this proposal to April 17, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\25\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \26\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are
seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes
that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity
with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options
transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve
consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while
maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and
protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \27\ in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating
adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the
benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade
completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by,
transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many
Members, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions
rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge
altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest
of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between
Customers and non-Customers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are
treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This
treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not
necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less
likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option
throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading
accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S.
options markets generally there is significant retail customer
participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges
such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market
participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because
it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional
protections as compared to non-Customers.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to
adjust a Customer's execution price when a complex order is deemed to
be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A
complex order that executes against individual leg markets may receive
an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or
Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the complex order is
executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of
the fact that they have executed against a complex order or that the
complex order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange
believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible
because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other
securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in
these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants
are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.
    The Exchange also believes its proposal related to stock-option
orders is consistent with the Act. Stock-option orders consist of an
option component and a stock component. Due to the fact that the
Exchange has no control over the venues on which the stock is executed
the proposal focuses on the option component of the stock-option order
by adjusting or nullifying the option in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3). Also, nullifying the option component if the stock
component cannot be executed ensures that market participants receive
the execution for which they bargained. Stock-option orders are
negotiated and agreed to as a package; thus, if for any reason the
stock portion of a stock-option order cannot ultimately be executed,
the parties should not be

saddled with an options position sans stock.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Importantly, the Exchange
believes the proposal will not impose a burden on inter-market
competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because
it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to
harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options transactions.
    The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such
process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather,
that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent
possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several
different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple
markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant
should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification
or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other
options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or stock-option orders
intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this
proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to
all market participants equally within each participant category (i.e.,
Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between
Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes
that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to
strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the
Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to
their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact
that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same
time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the
options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets
and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth
of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the
protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting
transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As
described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective
criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred
and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

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 \28\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 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 pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \30\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \31\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change by
April 17, 2017 in coordination with the other options exchanges.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-

2017-30, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07635 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24406-24408]
[DOCID:fr05my10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0218; FRL-9135-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District, and South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum facilities,
chemical plants, and facilities which use organic solvents. We are
approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 4, 2010. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0218], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules or rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
    D. Public comment and final action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
              Local agency                 Rule No.           Rule title              amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD.................................          216  Organic Solvent Cleaning          12/11/03        07/18/08
                                                       and Degreasing Operations.
SMAQMD.................................          466  Solvent Cleaning..........        05/23/02        09/15/09
SJVUAPCD...............................         4661  Organic Solvents..........        09/20/07        03/07/08
SCAQMD.................................         1173  Control of Volatile               02/06/09        01/10/10
                                                       Organic Compound Leaks
                                                       and Releases from
                                                       Components at Petroleum
                                                       Facilities and Chemical
                                                       Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 21, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SMAQMD
Rule 466 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review. On April 17, 2008, EPA
determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4661 met the
completeness criteria. On February 4, 2010, EPA determined that the
submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1173 met the completeness criteria. The July
18, 2008 submittal for PCAPCD Rule 216 became complete by operation of
law on January 18, 2009.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of SMAQMD Rule 466 in the SIP. We
approved earlier versions of PCAPCD Rule 216, SJVUAPCD Rule 4661, and
SCAQMD Rule 1173 into the SIP on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962), July 27,
2002 (67 FR 47701), and August 25,

1994 (59 FR 43751). SCAQMD adopted earlier versions of Rule 1173 on
December 6, 2002 and June 1, 2007, and CARB submitted them to us on
December 29, 2006 and April 6, 2009. The PCAPCD, SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions on December 11, 2003,
September 20, 2007, and February 6, 2009 and CARB submitted them to us
on July 18, 2008, March 7, 2008, and January 10, 2010. While we can act
on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules or rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The submitted rules
control VOC emissions from petroleum facilities, chemical plants, and
solvent usage. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The PCAPCD, SMAQMD,
SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR
part 81), so Rule 466, Rule 4661, and Rule 1173 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.
    4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents,'' EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006.
    5. ``Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations,'' CARB,
July 18, 1991.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by June 4, 2010, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on July 6, 2010. This will incorporate the rules
into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 18, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(354)(i)(E)(13)
and (359)(i)(C)(2) and (377)(i)(A)(2) and (378) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (354) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (13) Rule 4661, ``Organic Solvents,'' amended on September 20,
2007.
* * * * *
    (359) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Rule 216, ``Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing
Operations,'' amended on December 11, 2003.
* * * * *
    (377) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 466, ``Solvent Cleaning,'' adopted on May 23, 2002.
    (378) New and amended regulations were submitted on January 10,
2010 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1173, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and
Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants,''
amended on February 6, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-10402 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54040]
[DOCID:fr13se06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-583-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 1, 2006, Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to
become effective October 1, 2006:

Second Revised Sheet No. 78
Third Revised Sheet No. 80
Third Revised Sheet No. 81

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

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15166 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P