[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37627-37633]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16925]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81322; File No. SR-ISE-2017-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 720,
Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious
Errors

August 7, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 26, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 720, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on a date that is
within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved a similar
proposal filed by Bats BZX on July 6, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange and other options exchanges recently 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.\3\ 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. Specifically, as described in the Initial Filing, the
Exchange and all other options exchanges have been working to further
improve the review of potentially erroneous transactions as well as
their subsequent adjustment by creating an objective and universal way
to determine Theoretical Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not
available. Because this initiative required additional exchange and
industry discussion as well as additional time for development and
implementation, the Exchange and the other options exchanges determined
to proceed with the Initial Filing and to undergo a secondary
initiative to complete any additional improvements to the applicable
rule. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt procedures that
will lead to a more objective and uniform way to determine Theoretical
Price in the event a reliable NBBO is not available. In addition to
this change, the Exchange has proposed two additional minor changes to
its rules. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of Bats BZX, which the
Exchange [sic] approved on July 6, 2017,\4\ and those that the other
options exchanges intend to file, except that it omits the section of
the proposal that pertains to trading halts due to the fact that the
Supplementary Material to Exchange Rule 702 already includes the
applicable language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74896 (May 7,
2015); 80 FR 27373 (May 13, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-18) (the ``Initial
Filing'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81084 (July 6,
2017) (granting approval of Bats BZX proposal), 82 FR 32216 (July
12, 2017); 82 FR 23684 (May 23, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-035) (notice
of filing of Bats BZX proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Theoretical Price Using a Third Party Provider
    Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as
potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the
``Theoretical Price'' of the option, i.e., the Exchange's estimate of
the correct market price for the option. Pursuant to Rule 720, if the
applicable option series is traded on at least one other options
exchange, then the Theoretical Price of an option series is the last
national best bid (``NBB'') just prior to the trade in question with
respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last national best
offer (``NBO'') just prior to the trade in question with respect to an
erroneous buy transaction unless one of the exceptions described below
exists. Thus, whenever the Exchange has a reliable NBB or NBO, as
applicable, just prior to the transaction, then the Exchange uses this
NBB or NBO as the Theoretical Price.
    The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific
situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be
reliable. Specifically, the Rule specifies situations in which there
are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') is determined to be too wide to
be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of
these circumstances, in turn, because the NBB or NBO is not available
or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines Theoretical
Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price,
Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the
prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option
in question. Exchange personnel may also take into

account the price of the underlying security and the volatility
characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the
option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by
experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is
currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also
subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that
spans multiple options exchanges.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Supplementary Material to Rule 720,
Item .06 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price
when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (i.e., at the
open, when there are no valid quotes or when there is a wide quote). In
particular, the Exchange has been working with other options exchanges
to identify and select a reliable third party vendor (``TP Provider'')
that would provide Theoretical Price to the Exchange whenever one or
more transactions is under review pursuant to Rule 720 and the NBBO is
unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 720(b). The Exchange
and other options exchanges have selected CBOE Livevol, LLC
(``Livevol'') as the TP Provider, as described below. As further
described below, proposed Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06
would codify the use of the TP Provider as well as limited exceptions
where the Exchange would be able to deviate from the Theoretical Price
given by the TP Provider.
    Pursuant to proposed Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06,
when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request
Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and
all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this
proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange
by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.\5\
This language also makes clear that the Exchange and all other options
exchanges will use the same TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Though the Exchange and other options exchanges considered a
streaming feed, it was determined that it would be more feasible to
develop and implement an on demand service and that such a service
would satisfy the goals of the initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed TP Provider selected by the Exchange
and other options exchanges is Livevol. The Exchange proposes to codify
this selection in proposed paragraph (d) to Supplementary Material to
Rule 720, Item .06. As such, the Exchange would file a rule proposal
and would provide notice to the options industry of any proposed change
to the TP Provider.
    The Exchange and other options exchanges have selected Livevol as
the proposed TP Provider after diligence into various alternatives.
Livevol has, since 2009, been the options industry leader in providing
equity and index options market data and analytics services.\6\ The
Exchange believes that Livevol has established itself within the
options industry as a trusted provider of such services and notes that
it and all other options exchanges already subscribe to various Livevol
services. In connection with this proposal, Livevol will develop a new
tool based on its existing technology and services that will supply
Theoretical Price to the Exchange and other options exchanges upon
request. The Theoretical Price tool will leverage current market data
and surrounding strikes to assist in a relative value pricing approach
to generating a Theoretical Price. When relative value methods are
incapable of generating a valid Theoretical Price, the Theoretical
Price tool will utilize historical trade and quote data to calculate
Theoretical Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that in 2015, Livevol was acquired by
CBOE Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') and C2 Options Exchange (``C2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a
subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is
unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical
Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However,
the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact
the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is
fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the
limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider,
as described below.
    As proposed, to the extent an Official \7\ of the Exchange believes
that the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider is fundamentally
incorrect and cannot be used consistent with the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market, the Official shall contact the TP Provider to
notify the TP Provider of the reason the Official believes such
Theoretical Price is inaccurate and to request a review and correction
of the calculated Theoretical Price. For example, if an Official
received from the TP Provider a Theoretical Price of $80 in a series
that the Official might expect to be instead in the range of $8 to $10
because of a recent corporate action in the underlying, the Official
would request that the TP Provider review and confirm its calculation
and determine whether it had appropriately accounted for the corporate
action. In order to ensure that other options exchanges that may
potentially be relying on the same Theoretical Price that, in turn, the
Official believes to be fundamentally incorrect, the Exchange also
proposes to promptly provide notice to other options exchanges that the
TP Provider has been contacted to review and correct the calculated
Theoretical Price at issue and to include a brief explanation of the
reason for the request.\8\ Although not directly addressed by the
proposed Rule, the Exchange expects that all other options exchanges
once in receipt of this notification would await the determination of
the TP Provider and would use the corrected price as soon as it is
available. The Exchange further notes that it expects the TP Provider
to cooperate with, but to be independent of, the Exchange and other
options exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of the Rule, an Official is an Officer of the
Exchange or such other employee designee of the Exchange that is
trained in the application of this Rule. See Rule 720(a)(3).
    \8\ See proposed paragraph (b) to Supplementary Material to Rule
720, Item .06.
    \9\ The Exchange expects any TP Provider selected by the
Exchange and other options exchanges to act independently in its
determination and calculation of Theoretical Price. With respect to
Livevol specifically, the Exchange again notes that Livevol is a
subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, Inc., which is also the ultimate parent
company of multiple options exchanges. The Exchange expects Livevol
to calculate Theoretical Price independent of its affiliated
exchanges in the same way it will calculate Theoretical Price
independent of non-affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed provision to allow an
Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided
Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly
because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new
process for the first time. Although the exchanges have conducted
thorough diligence with respect to Livevol as the selected TP Provider
and would do so with any potential replacement TP Provider, the
Exchange is concerned that certain scenarios could arise where the
Theoretical Price generated by the TP Provider does not take into
account relevant factors and would result in an unfair result for
market participants involved in a transaction. The Exchange notes that
if such situations do indeed arise, to the extent practicable the
Exchange will also work with the TP Provider and

other options exchanges to improve the TP Provider's calculation of
Theoretical Price in future situations. For instance, if the Exchange
determines that a particular type of corporate action is not being
appropriately captured by the TP Provider when such provider is
generating Theoretical Price, while the Exchange believes that it needs
the ability to request a review and correction of the Theoretical Price
in connection with a specific review in order to provide a timely
decision to market participants, the Exchange would share information
regarding the specific situation with the TP Provider and other options
exchanges in an effort to improve the Theoretical Price service for
future use. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to
rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the
provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential
circumstances. Further, the Theoretical Price used by the Exchange in
connection with its rulings will always be that received from the TP
Provider and the Exchange has not proposed the ability to deviate from
such price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To the extent the TP Provider has been contacted by an
Official of the Exchange, reviews the Theoretical Price provided but
disagrees that there has been any error, then the Exchange would be
bound to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Supplementary Material to
Rule 720, Item .06, an Official of the Exchange may determine the
Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue
that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate
Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely
manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely
on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is
necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances.
Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 720(e)(4), the Exchange
has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available
in order to be considered timely.\11\ The Exchange expects that it
would await the TP Provider's services becoming available again so long
as the Exchange was able to obtain information regarding the issue and
the TP Provider had a reasonable expectation of being able to resume
normal operations within the next several hours based on communications
with the TP Provider. More specifically with respect to Livevol,
Livevol has business continuity and disaster recovery procedures that
will help to ensure that the Theoretical Price tool remains available
or, in the event of an outage, that service is restored in a timely
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the context of a Significant Market Event, the Exchange
may determine, ``in consultation with other options exchanges . . .
that timely adjustment is not feasible due to the extraordinary
nature of the situation.'' See Rule 720(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that if a wide-scale event occurred, even
if such event did not qualify as a ``Significant Market Event''
pursuant to Rule 720(e), and the TP Provider was unavailable or
otherwise experiencing difficulty, the Exchange believes that it and
other options exchanges would seek to coordinate to the extent
possible. In particular, the Exchange and other options exchanges now
have a process, administered by the Options Clearing Corporation, to
invoke a discussion amongst all options exchanges in the event of any
widespread or significant market events. The Exchange believes that
this process could be used in the event necessary if there were an
issue with the TP Provider.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt language in paragraph (d) of
Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 to Rule 720 to disclaim
the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with
the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price,
and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the
proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider,
nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its
affiliates are referred to collectively as the ``TP Provider''), makes
any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by
any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to
Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06. The proposed rule would
further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP
Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a
particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price.
Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor
the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims,
losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or
delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by
any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to
the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or
delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is
modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding ``reporting
authorities'' that calculate indices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Rule 2011, which relates to index options
potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaims
liability for a reporting authority and their affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed change described above, the
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 720 to state that the Exchange will
rely on paragraph (b) and Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06
when determining Theoretical Price.
No Valid Quotes--Market Participant Quoting on Multiple Exchanges
    As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed
to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no
quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when
there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be
valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published
at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series
(a ``crossed market''); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were
submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii)
quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange
has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure
where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple
exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add an additional
category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation
where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous
price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as
invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if
either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the
series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus,
similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes
published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the
transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for
purposes of the rule quotations on other options exchanges by that same
market participant.
    In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized
fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of
this proposed provision in two ways. First, because the process will
take considerable coordination with other options exchanges to confirm
that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed
submitted by a

party to a transaction on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to limit
this provision to apply to up to twenty-five (25) total options series
(i.e., whether such series all relate to the same underlying security
or multiple underlying securities). Second, the Exchange proposes to
require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on
one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the
quotes which were submitted by such party and published by other
options exchanges. In other words, as proposed, the burden will be on
the party seeking that the Exchange disregard their quotations on other
options exchanges to identify such quotations. In turn, the Exchange
will verify with such other options exchanges that such quotations were
indeed submitted by such party.
    Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as
proposed to be amended.
Example 1--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy
options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker
A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely
request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous
transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule
720(b)(2).
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
     The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum
amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an
obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     Accordingly, the executions in all series would be
adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract
(Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming
orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
     The executions in all series would be nullified to the
extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
Example 2--Current Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges
Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').
     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
Result
     Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would
identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and
would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid
pursuant to Rule 720(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away
Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical
Price to be $1.05 (i.e., the NBO in the case of a potentially erroneous
buy transaction).
     The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25
minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether
an obvious error has occurred (i.e., $1.05 + $0.25 = $1.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or
adjusted.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, the
transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
Example 3--Proposed Rule, Member Erroneously Quotes on Multiple
Exchanges \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that its proposed rule will not impact
the proposed handling of a request for review where a market
participant is quoting only on the Exchange, thus, the Exchange has
not included a separate example for such a fact pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumptions
    For purposes of this example, assume the following:
     A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
(``Market Maker A'') is quoting in twenty series of options underlying
security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (``Away
Exchange'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule would operate the
same if Market Maker A was quoting on more than two exchanges. The
Exchange has limited the example to two exchanges for simplicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market
for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the
Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell
options at $1.05.
     In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly
worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
     Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00
x $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO
based on Market Maker A's quotes).
     Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and
executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
     Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the
Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as
potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting
the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market
Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as
quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away

Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by
Market Maker A).
Result
     Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify
Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would
consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant
to Rule 720(b)(2).
     The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate
to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the
other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed,
each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid
the quotations published on the other exchange.
     As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference
price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
     Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of
$0.05.
     The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum
amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an
obvious error has occurred (i.e., $0.05 + $0.25 = $0.30) so any
execution at or above this price is an obvious error.
     Accordingly, the executions in all series would be
adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract
(Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming
orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
     The executions in all series would be nullified to the
extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
     As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have
identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other
options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is
approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified
or adjusted as set forth above.
     If this example was instead modified such that Market
Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes
that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as
invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As
noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25
series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely
and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market
participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be
necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question
on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a
transaction on the Exchange.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal
to a date within ninety (90) days after the Commission approved the
Bats BZX proposal on July 6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the
operative date in a Regulatory Alert made available to its Members.
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.\15\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are
seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The
Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the
event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable 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. Thus,
the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of
the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to
Rule 720, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price
if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP
Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions by further reducing the possibility of
disparate results between options exchanges and increasing the
objectivity of the application of Rule 720. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Rule is transparent with respect to the
limited circumstances under which the Exchange will request a review
and correction of Theoretical Price from the TP Provider, and has
sought to limit such circumstances as much as possible. The Exchange
notes that under the current Rule, Exchange personnel are required to
determine Theoretical Price in certain circumstances and yet rarely do
so because such circumstances have already been significantly limited
under the harmonized rule (for example, because the wide quote
provision of the harmonized rule only applies if the quote was narrower
and then gapped but does not apply if the quote had been persistently
wide). Thus, the Exchange believes it will need to request Theoretical
Price from the TP Provider only in very rare circumstances and in turn,
the Exchange anticipates that the need to contact the TP Provider for
additional review of the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider
will be even rarer. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is unlikely
that an Exchange Official will ever be required to determine
Theoretical Price, as such circumstance would only be in the event of a
systems issue that has rendered the TP Provider's services unavailable
and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in
paragraph (d) of Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .06 to Rule
720 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in
connection with the proposed Rule, the TP Provider's calculation of
Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is
consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is
modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding ``reporting
authorities'' that calculate indices,\19\ and is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in that the proposed Rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra, note 12.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the
valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes

in a series published by another options exchange if either party to
the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the
series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The
Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \21\ because the application of the rule will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions by allowing the Exchange to coordinate with
other options exchanges to determine whether a market participant that
is party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange
established the market in an option on other options exchanges; to the
extent this can be established, the Exchange believes such
participant's quotes should be excluded in the same way such quotes are
excluded on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable
to limit the scope of this provision to twenty-five (25) series and to
require the party that believes it established the best bid or offer on
one or more other options exchanges to identify to the Exchange the
quotes which were submitted by that party and published by other
options exchanges. The Exchange believes these limitations are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ because they will
ensure that the Exchange is able to continue to apply the Rule in a
timely and organized fashion, thus fostering cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating
transactions and also removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the entire proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \23\ in that it does not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will
impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will
alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a
collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and
improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification o [sic]
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. To that
end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all
options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants
with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options
exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the
proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options
exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially
erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to
further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to
market events. The Exchange understands that all other options
exchanges either have or they 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 intramarket competition because the proposed provisions
apply to all market participants equally.

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 \24\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 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, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2017-76 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-2017-76. 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-
2017-76, and should be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16925 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38148-38150]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0631]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Atlantic Ocean, Key West, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation for the RWO Offshore World Championship on November 6,
8, and 10, 2019. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on
navigable waters on the waters of the Key West Main Ship Channel, Key
West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance in Key West, FL. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area without permission from the Captain of the Port Key West or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0631 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Ensign Vera Max, Sector Key West
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 20, 2019, Race World Offshore notified the Coast Guard that
it will be conducting a high speed boat race from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. on

November 6, 8, and 10, 2019. Approximately 50 participants and 200
spectator craft will attend the event, which will take place in the
Atlantic Ocean, off the tip of Key West, Florida, on the waters of the
Key West Main Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor
Entrance in Key West, FL. The Captain of the Port Key West has
determined the potential hazards associated with the high speed boat
race would be a safety concern for the participants, participant
vessels, and the general public.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators, and vessels on the navigable waters of the Key West Main
Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Key West proposes to establish a temporary special local
regulation from 9:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on November 6, 8, and 10,
2019. The proposed special local regulation would consist of two
regulated areas: (1) A race and safety buffer area and (2) a spectator
area. These areas would prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area or
buffer zone and prohibits vessels from transiting at speeds that cause
wake within the spectator area, unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Key West or a designated representative The special local
regulation would cover all navigable waters In the Atlantic Ocean, off
the tip of Key West, Florida, on the waters of the Key West Main Ship
Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location,
duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Although persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
area without authorization from the COTP or a designated
representative, they will be able to safely transit around the area.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the area, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the area between race heats.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this

action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
proposed rule involves a temporary special local regulation for a 7
hour duration on 3 days that would prohibit entry into the race area or
buffer zone, and prohibit vessels from transiting at speeds that cause
wake within the spectator area. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 in Table 3-1 of U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.T799-0631 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T799-0631  Special Local Regulation; RWO World Championship,
Key West, FL.

    (a) Locations. The following regulated areas are established as
special local regulations. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race and Safety Buffer Area. Waters of the Atlantic Ocean of
Key West, FL that are encompassed within the following points: Starting
at Point 1 in position 24[deg]32.506' N, 81[deg]49.984' W; thence
southwest to Point 2 in position 24[deg]32.455' N, 81[deg]49.040' W;
thence northwest to Point 3 in position 24[deg]32.559' N,
81[deg]49.584' W; thence northwest to Point 4 in position
24[deg]32.608' N, 81[deg]49.628' W; thence northwest to Point 5 in
position 24[deg]33.095' N, 81[deg]49.265' W; thence northeast to Point
6 in position 24[deg]33.518' N, 81[deg]48.902' W; thence northeast to
Point 7 in position 24[deg]33.908' N, 81[deg]48.448' W; thence east to
Point 8 in position 24[deg]33.898' N, 81[deg]48.364' W; thence
southeast back to origin.
    (2) Spectator Area. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Key West,
FL that are encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point
1 in position 24[deg]33.123' N, 81[deg]49.290' W; thence northeast to
Point 2 in position 24[deg]33.545' N, 81[deg]48.923' W; thence east to
Point 3 in position 24[deg]33.518' N, 81[deg]48.902' W thence southwest
to point 4 in position 24[deg]33.095' N, 81[deg]49.265' W thence west
back to origin.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, the term ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Key West in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels,
except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed boat
races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the regulated areas described in paragraph (a) of
this section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or
their designated representative.
    (2) All persons are prohibited from entering the water or swimming
in the spectator area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (3) All vessels are prohibited from transiting at speeds that cause
wake within the spectator area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
    (4) To seek permission to enter, contact the Captain of the Port
Key West or a designated representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the
Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated
representative.
    (5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on November 6, 8, and 10, 2019.

    Dated: July 31, 2019.
A.A. Chamie,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2019-16740 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Joanna Swanson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 02/ 28/ 2006 12: 24 PM To: arthur_ g._ fraas@ omb. eop. gov, amy_ e._ flynn@ omb. eop. gov Cc: Bill Harnett/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Juan Santiago/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ray Vogel/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Proposal regarding Treatment of Corn Milling Facilities Dear Mr. Fraas and Ms. Flynn,

Attached is the latest version of the proposed rule regarding the treatment of corn milling facilities under the " Major Emitting Facility" definition in section 169( 1) of the Act. I have attached a second file which compares the latest version of the proposed rule with the draft of the rule that you were sent on 2/ 27 at 11: 18 a. m., so that you can see the changes that have been made to the proposal since that time. Additionally, the edits you and I discussed over the phone yesterday evening, Ms. Flynn, and this morning with Bill Harnett have been incorporated into the proposal.

Thank you for your review and consideration. Joanna Joanna C. Swanson Environmental Protection Specialist Operating Permits Group, AQPD, OAQPS 919 541 5282


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26194-26195]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8405-023]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad),
Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments
on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a Subsequent License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 8405-023.
    c. Dated Filed: February 28, 2022.
    d. Submitted by: Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP).
    e. Name of Project: Glen Hydroelectric Project (Glen Project).
    f. Location: The Glen Project is located on the Mascoma River in
Grafton County, New Hampshire. The project does not occupy federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. John Greenan, P.E., Green
Mountain Power Corporation, 2152 Post Road, Rutland, VT 05701; (802)
770-2195; [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating GMP as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. GMP filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD,
including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6
of the Commission's regulations.
    n. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents via the internet through
the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.

    Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to
be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-8405-023.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by June 26, 2022.
    p. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the
required level of analysis and satisfy the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the
Commission prepares an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.

Scoping Meetings

    Due to on-going concerns with large gatherings related to COVID-19,
we do not intend to hold in-person public scoping meetings or an in-
person environmental site review. Rather, Commission staff will hold
two public scoping meetings using a telephone conference line. The
daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes,
and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the evening
scoping meeting will focus on receiving input from the public. We
invite all interested agencies, Native American tribes, NGOs, and
individuals to attend one of these meetings to assist us in identifying
the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA
document.
    The dates and times of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Thursday, May 26, 2022, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EST
    Call in number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Participant passcode: 3472916.

Evening Scoping Meeting

Thursday, May 26, 2022, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. EST
    Call in number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Participant passcode: 3472916.
    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list and GMP's distribution list. Copies of
SD1 may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for accessing information in
paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document
2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and
schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified through the scoping
process.

Virtual Site Tour

    GMP will hold a virtual site tour of the Glen Project on May 25,
2022, starting at 10 a.m. Please contact Kirk Smith of Gomez and
Sullivan Engineers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected], by
May 24, 2022, if you plan to attend. Meeting details will be provided
by Gomez and Sullivan staff once attendance is confirmed.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) Initiate
scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and
resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing
information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4)
review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing
activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of
the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes
coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification
processes; and (5) discuss the potential for any federal or state
agency or Indian tribe to act as a cooperating agency for development
of an environmental document. Meeting participants should come prepared
to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in
preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a
copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    Commission staff will be moderating the scoping meetings. The
meetings will begin promptly at their respective start times listed
above.
    At the start of the meeting, staff will provide further
instructions regarding the meeting setup, agenda, and time period for
comments and questions. We ask for your patience as staff present
information and field participant comments in orderly manner. To
indicate you have a question or comment, press * and 3 to virtually
``raise your hand.'' Oral comments will be limited to 5 minutes in
duration for each participant. The meetings will be recorded by a
stenographer and will be filed to the public record of the project.
    Please note, that if no participants join the meetings within 15
minutes after the start time, staff will end the meeting and conference
call. The meetings will end after participants on the telephone
conference line have presented their oral comments or at the specified
end time, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: April 27, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09448 Filed 5-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55261-55262]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0880]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Generic Drug User Fee Amendments
of 2012: Questions and Answers (Revision 1); Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Generic Drug
User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers (Revision 1).'' The
Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) is designed to speed
the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and
reduce costs to industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to
support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs
program. GDUFA also requires that generic drug facilities, sites, and
organizations located around the world provide identification
information annually to FDA. This guidance is intended to provide
updated answers to common questions from the generic drug industry and
other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of
generic drug products regarding the requirements and commitments of
GDUFA.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by November 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaewon Hong, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New
Hampshire Ave., rm. 4145, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the
President on July 9, 2012. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of
safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to
industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and
measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program.
    GDUFA establishes fees for abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs), prior approval supplements (PASs) to ANDAs, and drug master
files (DMFs), annual facility fees, and a one-time fee for original
ANDAs pending with FDA on October 1, 2012 (backlog fees). Fees are
incurred for ANDAs and PASs submitted on or after October 1, 2012. An
application fee is also incurred the first time a DMF is referenced in
an ANDA or PAS submitted on or after October 1, 2012. FDA previously
announced GDUFA fees for fiscal year 2013 in the Federal Register.
ANDA, PAS, and DMF fees were published on October 25, 2012 (77 FR
65198); the backlog fee was published on October 25, 2012 (77 FR
65199); and facility fees were published on January 17, 2013 (78 FR
3900). GDUFA fees for fiscal year 2014 were announced in the Federal
Register of August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46977).
    On August 27, 2012, FDA announced the availability of a draft
guidance for industry entitled ``Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of
2012: Questions and Answers'' (77 FR 51814). The comment period on the
draft guidance closed on October 26, 2012. In response to comments
received in the docket and to address additional questions that have
arisen since the launch of the GDUFA program, FDA has revised the draft
guidance and is issuing it again in draft to solicit public comment.
Revision 1 clarifies some of the questions and answers in the first
version and adds several new questions and answers. The questions and
answers address four key categories: Fees; self-identification of
facilities, sites, and organizations; review of generic drug
submissions; and inspections and compliance.
    This revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on
``Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers
(Revision 1).'' It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 2, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-21891 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P