12762 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Options 3, Section 11(a). 4See Options 3, Section 11(b). 5See Options 3, Section 11(d). 6See Options 3, Section 13. 7See Supplementary Material .03 to Options 3, 

Section 14. 8See Options 3, Section 15(a)(3)(A). 

9See Supplementary Material .02 to Options 5, 

Section 2. 

10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86947 

(September 12, 2019), 84 FR 49165 (September 18, 

2019) (SR–ISE–2019–21). 

11Specifically in Options 3, Section 11, the 

Exchange will amend current subsections (a)(2)(B), 

(b)(3)(A)–(C) (renumbered to (b)(4)(A)–(C) under 

this proposal), (c)(7)(A)–(C), (d)(2)(C) (renumbered 

to (d)(3)(C) under this proposal), and (e)(4)(D). In 

Options 3, Section 13, the Exchange will amend 

current subsections (d)(1)–(3) and (e)(5)(i)–(iii). 

12Specifically in Options 3, Section 11, 

subsections (b)(3)(A)–(C) (renumbered to (b)(4)(A)– 

(C)), and (d)(2)(A) and (C) (renumbered to (d)(3)(A) 

and (C)) will be updated. 

13A ‘‘Response’’ is an electronic message that is 

sent by Members in response to a broadcast 

message. See Options 3, Section 11. 

14See Options 3, Section 11(c)(7) and (e)(4). 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSENAT–2021–04, and 

should be submitted on or before March 

25, 2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.22

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04422 Filed 3–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–91223; File No. SR–ISE– 

2021–01] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq 

ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Various Rules 

in Options 3 and Options 5 

February 26, 2021. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

18, 2021, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III, below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

various rules in Options 3 and Options 

5. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s website at 

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/ 

rulebook/ise/rules, at the principal 

office of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend various rules in 

Options 3 and Options 5. The proposed 

changes consist of conforming existing 

rules to current System technology, 

amending rule text to add greater detail 

on how certain Exchange functionality 

operate today, and conforming language 

within the Exchange’s rules to the rules 

of other exchanges. As such, no System 

changes to existing functionality are 

being made pursuant to this proposal. 

Rather, this proposal is designed to 

reduce any potential investor confusion 

as to the features and applicability of 

certain functionality presently available 

on the Exchange. These changes are 

described in detail below, and include 

amending Exchange rules governing: (1) 

The Block Order Mechanism (‘‘Block’’),3

(2) the Facilitation Mechanism 

(‘‘Facilitation’’),4 (3) the Solicited Order 

Mechanism (‘‘Solicitation’’),5 (4) the 

Price Improvement Mechanism 

(‘‘PIM’’),6 (5) Trade Value Allowance 

(‘‘TVA’’),7 (6) Anti-Internalization,8 and 

(7) the exposure mechanism 

(‘‘Exposure’’).9

Universal Changes 

In September 2019, the Exchange 

amended its regular allocation rule in 

Options 7, Section 10 (Priority of Quotes 

and Orders) to make non-substantive 

changes, among other changes, to 

replace references to Professional 

interest with non-Priority Customer 

interest.10 The Exchange now proposes 

to make similar changes to replace all 

instances of ‘‘Professional’’ interest with 

‘‘non-Priority Customer’’ interest 

throughout its auction allocation rules 

in Options 3, Section 11 and Section 13 

to align with the changes made in SR– 

ISE–2019–21.11 While the term 

‘‘Professional Orders’’ is defined within 

Options 1, Section 1(a)(39) as an order 

that is for the account of a person or 

entity that is not a Priority Customer, 

the Exchange believes that using the 

term ‘‘non-Priority Customer’’ is more 

clear in describing the types of market 

participant to which the allocation 

applies, and also reduces confusion 

regarding any reference to Professional 

Orders or Professional Customer orders. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

make universal changes in its 

Facilitation and Solicitation rules 12 to 

clearly delineate between orders and 

Responses 13 of the same capacity. For 

example, where the existing rule text 

currently states ‘‘Priority Customer bids 

(offers),’’ the Exchange proposes instead 

to state ‘‘Priority Customer Orders and 

Priority Customer Responses to buy 

(sell).’’ The Exchange notes that this is 

merely a non-substantive change as 

auction orders and Responses of the 

same capacity do not get treated 

differently for allocation purposes 

today. The rules for complex 

Facilitation and Solicitation already 

distinguish between orders and 

Responses, so the Exchange is simply 

amending those complex rules to clearly 

state how, for example, Priority 

Customer Complex Orders and Priority 

Customer Responses get allocated 

today 14 With the proposed changes, the 

Exchange seeks to include a similar 

level of detail within its simple and 

complex Facilitation and Solicitation 

rules in order to bring transparency 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12763 

15See BX Options 3, Section 11(a)(2)(A). 16See BX Options 3, Section 11(a)(2)(B). 

17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84373 

(October 5, 2018), 83 FR 51730 (October 12, 2018) 

(SR–ISE–2018–56) (‘‘Complex Order Filing’’). As 

discussed later in this filing, the Complex Order 

Filing also clarified the Exchange’s complex 

Solicitation and PIM rules, and the Exchange is 

proposing to align the simple Solicitation and PIM 

rules with the complex rules where possible. 

18As a result, current subsections (b)(1)—(3) will 

be renumbered as (b)(2)—(4). The Exchange will 

also renumber current subsection (b)(3)(D) as 

subsection (b)(5). 

19The term ‘‘Away Best Bid or Offer’’ or ‘‘ABBO’’ 

means the displayed National Best Bid or Offer not 

including the Exchange’s Best Bid or Offer. See 

Options 1, Section 1(a)(4). 

20See Options 3, Section 11(c)(1) and (c)(2). 

Complex Facilitation refers to the Exchange’s best 

bid or offer instead of the NBBO or ABBO. There 

is no NBBO for complex orders as complex orders 

may be executed without consideration of any 

prices that might be available on other exchanges 

trading the same options contracts. See Options 3, 

Section 14(d). Additionally, executions of legs of 

complex orders are exceptions to the prohibition on 

trade-throughs. See Options 5, Section 2(b)(7). 

around how allocation takes place in 

those auction mechanisms today. 

Block Order Mechanism 

The Exchange proposes minor 

changes to the current descriptions of 

the Block execution and allocation 

process in Options 3, Section 11(a). As 

discussed below, the proposed Block 

changes are non-substantive in nature, 

and are intended to harmonize with the 

Block rule on its affiliated market, BX 

Options (‘‘BX’’) in order to ensure rule 

consistency between the Exchange and 

its affiliate offering identical 

functionality. 

First, the Exchange proposes to add 

‘‘up to the size of the block order’’ at the 

end of subsection (a)(2)(A). As 

amended, the rule will provide that bids 

(offers) on the Exchange at the time the 

block order is time the block order is 

executed that are priced higher (lower) 

than the block execution price, as well 

as Responses that are priced higher 

(lower) than the block execution price, 

will be executed in full at the block 

execution price up to the size of the 

block order. The Exchange is making 

this non-substantive change to align 

with BX’s Block rule,15 which will 

ensure rule consistency for identical 

functionality across affiliated markets. 

The language states that better priced 

interest gets executed in full only if 

there is sufficient size to execute against 

such interest, which is how block orders 

are executed and priced on the 

Exchange and BX today. 

Second, the Exchange proposes a nonsubstantive change in the first sentence 

of subsection (a)(2)(B) to replace ‘‘first 

and in time priority’’ with ‘‘first in price 

time priority.’’ As amended, the rule 

will provide that at the block execution 

price, Priority Customer Orders and 

Priority Customer Responses will be 

executed first in price time priority. This 

is not a change to the current Block 

allocation methodology, but rather a 

non-substantive change for better 

readability, and to align with BX’s Block 

rule 16 in order to ensure rule 

consistency for identical functionality 

across affiliated markets. Block orders 

will continue to trade at a single 

execution price that allows the 

maximum number of contracts of the 

block order to be executed against both 

the Responses entered to trade against 

the order and unrelated interest on the 

Exchange’s order book. 

Example 1 

Block order is entered to buy 50 contracts @

1.50 

The following Responses are received: 

Priority Customer Response 1 to sell 40 

contracts @1.40 

Priority Customer Response 2 to sell 10 

contracts @1.40 

Priority Customer Response 3 to sell 10 

contracts @1.39 

The block execution price would be $1.40 

(i.e., the price at which the maximum 

number of contracts could be executed) and 

would be executed as follows: 

Block order trades 10 with Priority Customer 

Response 3 @1.40 

Block order trades 40 with Priority Customer 

Response 1 @1.40 

As shown above, Priority Customer 

Response 3 would be executed in full 

since it is priced better than the block 

execution price and there is sufficient 

size to execute Response 3 against the 

block order, while Priority Customer 

Responses 1 and 2, which are priced at 

the block execution price, would 

participate in price time priority—i.e., 

the remaining 40 contracts would go to 

Response 1, which was received before 

Response 2. 

Facilitation Mechanism 

The Exchange proposes a number of 

changes to its Facilitation rule, none of 

which will change the current operation 

of this technology offering. Many of the 

proposed changes are intended to align 

the simple Facilitation rule in Options 

3, Section 11(b) with the complex 

Facilitation rule in Options 3, Section 

11(c) where relevant. In October 2018, 

the Exchange amended its complex 

order rules to provide greater clarity and 

additional detail regarding the operation 

and applicability of complex order 

functionality, including complex 

auction mechanisms like complex 

Facilitation.17 Accordingly, the 

Exchange seeks to make aligning 

changes and update its simple auction 

mechanism rules to similarly provide 

the level of detail that now exists in its 

complex auction mechanism rules. The 

proposed changes are also intended to 

align with the simple Facilitation rules 

of the Exchange’s affiliated markets, 

Nasdaq GEMX (‘‘GEMX’’) and Nasdaq 

MRX (‘‘MRX’’). The Exchange also 

proposes to more accurately describe 

how orders will be allocated in 

Facilitation’s ‘‘auto-match’’ 

functionality. 

In Options 3, Section 11(b), the 

Exchange proposes to add new 

subsection (b)(1),18 which will provide 

that Orders must be entered into the 

Facilitation Mechanism at a price that is 

(A) equal to or better than the NBBO on 

the same side of the market as the 

agency order unless there is a Priority 

Customer order on the same side 

Exchange best bid or offer, in which 

case the order must be entered at an 

improved price; and (B) equal to or 

better than the ABBO 19 on the opposite 

side. Orders that do not meet these 

requirements are not eligible for the 

Facilitation Mechanism and will be 

rejected. The Exchange is not proposing 

any other changes to the current entry 

requirements for Facilitation. The new 

subsection (b)(1) would simply provide 

additional detail about simple 

Facilitation’s existing entry checks, and 

align to the level of detail currently 

within the complex Facilitation rule 

regarding entry checks.20

Example 2 

Assume the following market: 

ISE BBO: 1 × 2 (also NBBO) 

CBOE: 0.75. *times; 2.25 (next best exchange 

quote) 

Facilitation order is entered to buy 50 

contracts @2.05 

No Responses are received. 

The Facilitation order executes with 

resting 50 lot quote @2. In this instance, 

the Facilitation order is able to begin 

crossed with the contra side ISE BBO 

because in execution, the resting 50 lot 

quote @2 is able to provide price 

improvement to the facilitation order. 

In renumbered subsection (b)(2), the 

Exchange proposes to add language to 

describe the content of the broadcast 

message sent to Members upon entry of 

an order into simple Facilitation. In 

particular, the Exchange proposes to 

specify that the broadcast message 

includes the series, price and size of the 

Agency Order, and whether it is to buy 

or sell. Although this change reflects 

current functionality, the existing rule is 

silent in this regard and only indicates 

that a broadcast message is sent upon 

the order’s entry into the mechanism. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12764 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

21See GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 

11(b)(1). 

22See Options 3, Section 11(c)(6). 

23See GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 

11(b)(3). 

24See Options 3, Section 11(c)(7)(B) and (C). 

Other options exchanges such as BX provide similar 

functionality that allows members using an auction 

mechanism to configure allocation priority. See, 

e.g., BX Options 3, Section 13, which provides a 

similar feature for the BX Options Price 

Improvement Auction (‘‘PRISM’’) called 

‘‘Surrender.’’ 

25 Id. 

26See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62644 

(August 4, 2010), 75 FR 48395 (August 10, 2010) 

(SR–ISE–2010–61) (‘‘Auto-Match Filing’’). As 

discussed later in this filing, the Auto-Match Filing 

also introduced the auto-match feature on PIM. As 

such, the Exchange is proposing to make similar 

changes in PIM’s auto-match rule as proposed for 

Facilitation’s auto-match rule. 

27See Options 3, Section 11(b)(3)(C) (renumbered 

to Section 11(b)(4)(C) under this proposal). 

28The Auto-Match Filing describes the automatch feature as allowing the initiating member to 

submit a contra-side order that will automatically 

match the price and size set forth by the competing 

interest from other market participants (i.e., auction 

responses, quotes, and orders) at any price level 

during the auction or up to a specified limit price 

if a limit is specified. 

29See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55557 

(March 29, 2007), 72 FR 16838 (April 5, 2007) (SR– 

ISE–2006–78) (Order Granting Approval of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to Facilitation 

Mechanism). 

30As a result, current paragraphs (d)(1)–(3) will 

be renumbered accordingly. The Exchange will also 

renumber current paragraph (d)(2)(D) as paragraph 

(d)(4). 

31See Options 3, Section 11(e)(1). Complex 

Solicitation refers to the Exchange’s best bid or offer 

instead of the NBBO. As noted above, there is no 

NBBO for complex orders, and executions of legs 

of complex orders are exceptions to the prohibition 

of trade-throughs. See supra note 20. 

Identical language currently exists in 

the rules governing simple Facilitation 

on GEMX and MRX, which operate in 

the same way as ISE’s simple 

Facilitation.21

In renumbered subsection (b)(3), the 

Exchange proposes to replace the words 

‘‘must not exceed’’ with ‘‘will only be 

considered up to’’ in order to align with 

identical language in the complex 

Facilitation rule.22 This change more 

accurately describes that the System 

will cap Responses to the size of the 

auction for purposes of allocation 

methodology. 

In renumbered subsection (b)(4)(A), 

the Exchange proposes to provide that 

the facilitation order will be cancelled at 

the end of the exposure period if an 

execution would take place at a price 

that is inferior to the best bid (offer) on 

the Exchange. This is a non-substantive 

change that makes clear that any 

executions in Facilitation will comply 

with the general prohibition on tradethroughs in Options 5, Section 2(a). 

Identical language is included in the 

rules governing simple Facilitation on 

GEMX and MRX.23

In renumbered subsections (b)(4)(B) 

and (b)(4)(C), the Exchange proposes to 

amend the rule to provide that the 

facilitating Member will be allocated up 

to forty percent (40%) (or such lower 

percentage requested by the Member) of 

the original size of the facilitation order. 

If the Member requests a lower 

allocation percentage, the contra-side 

order would receive an allocation 

consistent with the percentage 

requested by the Member. Regardless of 

the Member’s request, the contra-side 

order would still be responsible for 

executing up to the full size of the 

agency order if there is not enough 

interest to execute the agency order at 

a particular price. Similar language 

indicating that the Member may request 

a lower allocation percentage than 40% 

is currently included in the complex 

Facilitation rule, which operate in the 

same way as the simple Facilitation in 

this manner.24 For greater consistency 

between its simple and complex 

Facilitation rules, the Exchange also 

proposes to make aligning, nonsubstantive changes in the complex 

Facilitation rule to provide that the 

Member will ‘‘be allocated up to’’ forty 

percent. The current complex 

Facilitation language provides that the 

Member will ‘‘execute at least forty 

percent’’ or that the Member will ‘‘be 

allocated at least forty percent.’’ 25 The 

non-substantive language proposed for 

complex Facilitation will therefore serve 

to harmonize the complex rule with the 

amended simple rule. 

The Exchange also proposes to more 

accurately describe Facilitation’s automatch functionality, which provides an 

enhanced price improvement 

opportunity for the agency order by 

permitting the contra-side order to 

further participate in the cross by automatching the price and size of 

competing interest providing price 

improvement from other market 

participants.26 The rule currently 

provides that upon entry of an order 

into the Facilitation Mechanism, the 

facilitating Electronic Access Member 

can elect to automatically match the 

price and size of orders, quotes and 

responses received during the exposure 

period up to a specified limit price or 

without specifying a limit price. In this 

case, the facilitating Electronic Access 

Member will be allocated its full size at 

each price point, or at each price point 

within its limit price is a limit is 

specified, until a price point is reached 

where the balance of the order can be 

fully executed.27 The Exchange 

proposes to state that if a Member elects 

to auto-match, the facilitating Electronic 

Access Member will be allocated the 

aggregate size of all competing quotes, 

orders, and Responses (instead of ‘‘its 

full size’’) at each price point, or at each 

price point up to the specified limit 

price (instead of ‘‘within its limit price’’) 

if a limit is specified, until a price point 

is reached where the balance of the 

order can be fully executed. The 

Exchange believes that the modified 

language more accurately explains how 

the functionality works today, and 

better aligns with how this feature is 

described in the Auto-Match Filing.28

For greater consistency within its 

Rulebook, the Exchange will also make 

the same changes in the complex 

Facilitation auto-match rule in Options 

3, Section 11(c)(7)(C). 

Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add 

at the end of Supplementary Material 

.01 to Options 3, Section 11 that any 

solicited contra orders entered by 

Members into the Facilitation 

Mechanism to trade against Agency 

Orders may not be for the account of a 

Nasdaq ISE Market Maker that is 

assigned to the options class.29 This 

language was included in the approval 

order to SR–ISE–2006–78 to allow 

solicited transactions in ISE’s 

Facilitation Mechanism, so the 

proposed change will import that 

prohibition into the rule text for greater 

transparency. 

Solicited Order Mechanism 

The Exchange proposes a number of 

changes to its Solicitation rule, none of 

which will change the current operation 

of this technology offering. 

In Options 3, Section 11(d), the 

Exchange proposes to add new 

subsection (d)(1),30 which will provide 

that orders must be must be entered into 

the Solicited Order Mechanism at a 

price that is equal to or better than the 

NBBO on both sides of the market; 

provided that, if there is a Priority 

Customer order on the Exchange best 

bid or offer, the order must be entered 

at an improved price. Orders that do not 

meet these requirements are not eligible 

for the Solicited Order Mechanism and 

will be rejected. The Exchange is not 

proposing any other changes to the 

current entry requirements for 

Solicitation. The new subsection (d)(1) 

would simply provide additional detail 

about simple Solicitation’s existing 

entry checks, and align to the level of 

detail currently within the complex 

Solicitation rule regarding entry 

checks.31

Example 3 

Assume the following market: 

ISE BBO: 1 × 2 (also NBBO) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12765 

32See Options 3, Section 11(d) (requiring that 

each Solicitation order be designated as all-ornone). 

33See GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 

11(d)(1). 

34See Options 3, Section 13(e)(4)(i). 

35See Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(iii). As noted 

above, BX has a similar feature called Surrender for 

its PRISM auction. See supra note 24. 

36See Securities Exchange Release No. 85308 

(March 13, 2019), 84 FR 10136 (March 19, 2019) 

(SR–ISE–2019–05). 37See Supplementary Material .03 to Options 3, 

Section 14. 

CBOE: 0.75. × 2.25 (next best exchange quote) 

Solicitation order is entered to buy 500 

contracts @ 2.05 

The Solicitation order is rejected upon 

entry for being crossed with the NBBO 

on the contra side. In contrast to 

Example 2 above for Facilitation, the 

Solicitation order in this instance is not 

able to begin crossed with the contra 

side ISE BBO because of the all-or-none 

contingency of the Solicitation order.32

In renumbered subsection (d)(2), the 

Exchange proposes to add language to 

describe the content of the broadcast 

message sent to Members upon entry of 

an order into simple Solicitation. In 

particular, the Exchange proposes to 

specify that the broadcast message 

includes the series, price and size of the 

Agency Order, and whether it is to buy 

or sell. While this change reflects 

current functionality, the existing rule is 

silent in this regard and only indicates 

that a broadcast message is sent upon 

the order’s entry into the mechanism. 

Identical language already exists in the 

rules governing simple Solicitation on 

GEMX and MRX, which operate in the 

same way as the ISE’s simple 

Solicitation.33

Lastly, the Exchange also proposes 

technical changes in renumbered 

subsection (d)(3) to correct the internal 

lettering and cross-cites within 

paragraphs (A) through (C). 

Price Improvement Mechanism 

The Exchange proposes a number of 

changes to the PIM rule, none of which 

will change the current operation of this 

technology offering. As noted above, 

many of these modifications are similar 

to the changes proposed for Facilitation. 

The Exchange proposes in Options 3, 

Section 13(b)(2) to delete ‘‘national best 

bid or offer’’ as NBBO is already defined 

in subsection (b)(1) above. The 

Exchange proposes in subsection (c)(2) 

to provide that responses in the PIM 

(i.e., ‘‘Improvement Orders’’) will only 

be considered up to the size of the 

Agency Order. The proposed 

amendment will specifythat the System 

will cap the size of the Improvement 

Orders to the auction size for purposes 

of the allocation methodology. This is 

similar to the change proposed above for 

simple Facilitation, and also aligns to 

identical language in the complex PIM 

rule.34 The Exchange also proposes in 

subsection (c)(3) to amend the internal 

numbering from (1) and (2) to (i) and (ii) 

for greater numbering consistency 

within the PIM rule. 

In subsection (d)(3), which describes 

how allocation and execution takes 

place in simple PIM, the Exchange 

proposes that the Counter-Side Order 

will be allocated the greater of one 

contract or 40% (or such lower 

percentage requested by the Member) of 

the initial size of the Agency Order. 

Similar to Facilitation as discussed 

above, the System currently permits 

Members entering orders into PIM to 

elect to receive a percentage allocation 

that is less than 40%, although the 

current rule is silent in this regard. If the 

Member requests a lower allocation 

percentage, the Counter-Side Order 

would receive an allocation consistent 

with the percentage requested by the 

Member. Regardless of the Member’s 

request, the Counter-Side Order would 

still be responsible for executing up to 

the full size of the agency order if there 

is not enough interest to execute the 

agency order at a particular price. 

Complex PIM, which shares the same 

allocation feature as simple PIM, 

already has this concept within the rule, 

so the proposed changes will align the 

simple PIM rule with the complex PIM 

rule.35

The Exchange also proposes to more 

accurately describe PIM’s auto-match 

functionality in a similar manner as 

Facilitation’s auto-match functionality, 

as discussed above. In this instance, the 

Exchange proposes to amend the third 

sentence of subsection (d)(3) to provide: 

‘‘If a Member elects to auto-match, the 

Counter-Side Order will be allocated the 

aggregate size of all competing quotes, 

orders, and Responses at each price 

point up to the specified limit price if 

a limit is specified, until a price point 

is reached where the balance of the 

order can be fully executed.’’ Similar to 

the proposed amendments to simple 

Facilitation’s auto-match, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed language for 

simple PIM’s auto-match more clearly 

explains how the functionality works 

today, and better aligns with how this 

feature is described in the Auto-Match 

Filing. For greater consistency within its 

Rulebook, the Exchange will also make 

the same changes in the complex PIM 

auto-match rule in Options 3, Section 

13(e)(5)(iii). 

The Exchange further proposes 

technical amendments in subsection 

(d)(3) to replace all instances of 

‘‘Counter-Side order’’ as ‘‘Counter-Side 

Order’’ to use the correct terminology. 

Lastly, the Exchange proposes to 

provide in Supplementary Material .04 

to Options 3, Section 13 that PIMs will 

not queue or overlap in any manner, 

except as described in Options 3, 

Section 11(f) and (g). Sections 11(f) and 

(g) set forth the governing provisions for 

concurrent complex auctions and 

concurrent complex and simple 

auctions. The proposed changes to add 

in the cross-cites to Sections 11(f) and 

(g) will make clear that two simple or 

two complex PIM auctions are not 

permitted to run concurrently, but that 

a simple PIM auction may run 

concurrently with a complex PIM 

auction. 

Trade Value Allowance 

The Exchange proposes a nonsubstantive change to amend the TVA 

rule in Supplementary Material .03 to 

Options 3, Section 14 to add a cross-cite 

to the complex PIM rule in Options 3, 

Section 13, which was inadvertently 

omitted when the Exchange relocated 

the complex auctions rules in a prior 

filing.36 In SR–ISE–2019–05, the 

original cross-cite within the TVA rule 

was updated from Supplementary 

Material .08 to Rule 722 to Rule 716 

(now Options 3, Section 11). 

Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 

set forth the complex auction 

mechanism rules, namely complex 

Facilitation, Solicitation, and PIM. SR– 

ISE–2019–05 relocated complex 

Facilitation and Solicitation to Rule 716 

(now Options 3, Section 11), but moved 

complex PIM to Rule 723 (now Options 

3, Section 13). As such, the original 

cross-cite in the TVA rule should have 

been updated to include complex PIM 

in Rule 723 but was inadvertently 

omitted. 

TVA is a functionality that allows 

complex orders to trade outside of their 

expected notional trade amount by a 

specified amount. The amount of TVA 

permitted may be determined by the 

Member, or a default value determined 

by the Exchange and announced to 

Members.37 The TVA rule currently 

provides, however, that any amount of 

TVA is permitted in auction 

mechanisms pursuant to Options 3, 

Section 11 when auction orders do not 

trade solely with their contra-side order. 

The Exchange now proposes to add a 

cross-cite to Options 3, Section 13 to 

specify that TVA also applies to 

complex PIM auctions in this manner. 

The Exchange will also provide that 

TVA applies to ‘‘complex’’ mechanisms 

in the cited rules. These changes will 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12766 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

38See BX Options 3, Section 15(c)(1). 

39See Options 5, Sections 2 and 3. See also 

Options 3, Section 5(d). 

40Such order would also be handled in 

accordance with Supplementary Material .04 (NonCustomer Orders that opt out of the Exposure 

mechanism) or .05 (Sweep Orders) to Options 5, 

Section 2, as applicable. See Supplementary 

Material .01 to Options 5, Section 3. 

41 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

42 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

43As noted above, the Exchange seeks to add 

granularity to its simple auction rules to align with 

the level of detail that currently exists within its 

complex auction rules. See supra note 17. 

align the rule text to how TVA is 

presently implemented in the System. 

The Exchange notes that its complex 

auction mechanisms provide an 

opportunity for market participants to 

respond with better-priced interest that 

could execute against an Agency Order. 

As such, the Exchange believes that it is 

appropriate to ensure that paired orders 

entered into complex Facilitation, 

Solicitation and PIM that are broken up 

due to better-priced interest are actually 

executed against such better-priced 

interest, and are not restricted from 

trading due to TVA settings of one or 

more Members. 

Anti-Internalization 

The Exchange proposes to amend its 

anti-internalization (‘‘AIQ’’) rule in 

Options 3, Section 15(a)(3)(A). 

Specifically, the Exchange proposes to 

add that AIQ does not apply during the 

opening process or reopening process 

following a trading halt pursuant to 

Options 3, Section 8 to provide more 

specificity on how this functionality 

currently operates. The Exchange notes 

that the same procedures used during 

the opening process are used to reopen 

an option series after a trading halt, and 

therefore proposes to specify that AIQ 

will not apply during an Opening 

Process (i.e., the opening and halt 

reopening process) in addition to an 

auction, as currently within the Rule. 

AIQ is unnecessary during an Opening 

Process due to the high level of control 

that Market Makers exercise over their 

quotes during this process. The 

proposed changes will align the 

Exchange’s AIQ rule with BX’s AIQ 

rule, which sets forth materially 

identical functionality.38

Exposure Mechanism 

Under the linkage rules, the Exchange 

cannot execute orders at a price that is 

inferior to the NBBO, nor can the 

Exchange place an order on its book that 

would cause the Exchange best bid or 

offer to lock or cross another exchange’s 

quote.39 In these circumstances, 

Supplementary Material .02 to Options 

5, Section 2 sets forth an Exposure 

mechanism for automated order 

handling where eligible incoming orders 

are exposed at the NBBO to all Members 

to give them an opportunity to execute 

the order at the NBBO price or better. 

The Exchange proposes to make clear 

within Supplementary Material .02 that 

an incoming order will be eligible for 

Exposure if the order is priced at or 

through the ABBO, when the ABBO is 

better than the Exchange BBO. 

Supplementary Material .02 to 

Options 5, Section 2 currently provides 

that when the automatic execution of an 

incoming order would result in an 

impermissible Trade-Through, such 

order would be exposed at the current 

NBBO to all Exchange Members for a 

time period established by the Exchange 

not to exceed one (1) second. 

Supplementary Material .01 to Options 

5, Section 3, however, currently 

provides that when the price of an 

incoming limit order that is not 

executable upon entry would lock or 

cross a Protected Quotation, such order 

would be handled in accordance with 

the Exposure process in Supplementary 

Material .02 to Options 5, Section 2.40

The Exchange proposes to modify 

Supplementary Material .02 by 

removing the portion related to the 

automatic execution of an incoming 

order that would result in an 

impermissible Trade-Through, and 

instead providing within this Rule that 

Exposure will initiate when an 

incoming order is priced at or through 

the ABBO, when the ABBO is better 

than the Exchange BBO. The current 

language in Supplementary Material .02 

only specifies that Exposure is initiated 

when the price of the incoming order is 

crossed with the ABBO (i.e., would 

result in an impermissible TradeThrough), but does not specify the 

scenario in Supplementary Material .01 

to Options 5, Section 3 when the price 

is locked. As such, the proposed 

changes seek to enhance the accuracy of 

the rules by codifying both scenarios 

within the Exposure rule in 

Supplementary Material .02. 

Technical Amendments 

The Exchange proposes technical 

changes in the Supplementary Material 

to Options 3, Section 11. First, the 

Exchange proposes in Supplementary 

Material .03 to update an incorrect 

cross-cite from Options 3, Section 22(d) 

to Section 22(b), which limits principal 

transactions. Second, the Exchange will 

make corrective changes to renumber 

Supplementary Material .07 to .05, and 

to update the cross-cite to paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) therein to paragraph (a)(2)(A). 

Third, the Exchange proposes in 

renumbered Supplementary Material .07 

to update the reference to ‘‘Block 

Mechanism’’ to ‘‘Block Order 

Mechanism’’ to use the correct 

terminology. 

Lastly, the Exchange proposes some 

harmonizing changes throughout its 

Rulebook to align with the rule 

numbering and titles with that of its 

affiliates. Specifically, the Exchange 

proposes to add a new Options 4B and 

reserve it in the Rulebook in order to 

harmonize its Options Rule numbering 

with that of its affiliates, GEMX and 

Nasdaq PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’). The 

Exchange also proposes to retitle 

General 4 (currently titled ‘‘Regulation’’) 

to ‘‘Registration Requirements’’ to 

harmonize its General Rule titles with 

that of its affiliates The Nasdaq Stock 

Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,41 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,42

in particular, in that it is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with the 

protection of investors and public 

interest as all of the proposed changes 

will increase transparency around how 

various existing Exchange mechanisms 

work today. As such, no System changes 

to existing functionality are being made 

pursuant to this proposal. Rather, this 

proposal is designed to reduce any 

potential investor confusion as to the 

features and applicability of certain 

functionality presently available on the 

Exchange. 

Furthermore, many of the proposed 

changes seek to provide greater 

harmonization between the rules of the 

Exchange and its affiliates (notably rules 

related to Block, Facilitation, 

Solicitation, and AIQ), or between the 

Exchange’s own simple and complex 

auction rules (notably for simple and 

complex Facilitation, Solicitation, and 

PIM).43 The Exchange believes that 

these harmonizing changes would result 

in greater uniformity, and ultimately 

less burdensome and more efficient 

regulatory compliance by market 

participants. As such, the proposed rule 

change would foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

facilitating transactions in securities and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12767 

44See supra note 14. 

45See supra notes 15–16, and accompanying text. 

46See supra notes 20 and 31, and accompanying 

text. 

47See supra notes 21 and 33. 

48See supra note 23. 

49See supra notes 22 and 34. 

would remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system. The Exchange also believes that 

more consistent rules will increase the 

understanding of the Exchange’s 

operations for Members that are also 

members on the Exchange’s affiliates, 

thereby contributing to the protection of 

investors and the public interest. 

Specifically, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed universal changes to 

replace all instances of Professional 

interest with non-Priority Customer 

interest throughout the Exchange’s 

auction allocation rules will add greater 

consistency within the Exchange’s rules. 

As discussed above, the Exchange 

previously made the same modifications 

within its standard allocation rule in 

Options 7, Section 10, so the proposed 

changes will promote more consistent 

terminology in the rules and make them 

easier for market participants to 

navigate and comprehend. The 

Exchange also believes that using the 

term ‘‘non-Priority Customer’’ reduces 

any potential confusion regarding any 

reference to Professional Orders or 

Professional Customer orders. In 

addition, the Exchange believes that 

clearly delineating between orders and 

Reponses of the same capacity in the 

Facilitation and Solicitation rules will 

bring clarity and transparency around 

how allocation takes place in those 

auction mechanisms. The complex 

Facilitation and Solicitation rules 

currently differentiate between orders 

and Responses,44 so the Exchange is 

aligning the simple rule to the level of 

granularity already found in the 

complex rule while also specifying the 

capacity of such order or Response 

within the simple and complex rules. 

As noted above, the Exchange is not 

changing the current allocation 

methodology, and auction orders and 

Responses of the same capacity do not 

get treated differently for allocation 

purposes today. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed changes to the Block rule are 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest as the 

modifications will more accurately 

reflect the handling of auctions in 

Block, specifically as it relates to 

execution and allocation. The proposed 

changes will specify that better priced 

interest entered into Block gets executed 

in full only if there is sufficient size to 

execute against such interest, and that 

Priority Customer interest gets executed 

first in price time priority. This 

specificity will be helpful to market 

participants utilizing Block and provide 

greater certainty as to how their Block 

orders will be executed and allocated. 

The Exchange also believes that the 

proposed changes will continue to 

ensure a fair and orderly market by 

maintaining and protecting the priority 

of Priority Customer orders, while still 

affording the opportunity for all market 

participants to seek liquidity and 

potential price improvement during 

each Block auction commenced on the 

Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange 

is not proposing any changes to the 

current execution or allocation 

methodology but believes that the 

changes will promote consistency with 

the rulebook of its affiliated exchange 

BX, which offers identical 

functionality.45

Similarly, the Exchange believes that 

specifying the entry checks for simple 

Facilitation and Solicitation is 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest by 

providing greater consistency to the 

level of granularity currently within the 

complex Facilitation and Solicitation 

entry checks.46 The Exchange also 

believes it is appropriate to require that 

the Facilitation order be entered at an 

improved price if there is a Priority 

Customer order on the same side 

Exchange best bid or offer as the agency 

order. The Exchange believes this will 

ensure a fair and orderly market by 

maintaining priority of orders and 

quotes and protecting Priority Customer 

orders, while still affording the 

opportunity to seek liquidity and for 

potential price improvement during 

each Facilitation auction commenced on 

the Exchange. For the same reasons, the 

Exchange believes that it is appropriate 

to require that the Solicitation order be 

entered at an improved price if there is 

a Priority Customer order on the 

Exchange best bid or offer. 

The Exchange further believes that it 

is consistent with the Act to specify the 

contents of the broadcast message sent 

to Members upon entry of an order into 

simple Facilitation and Solicitation as 

the changes will remove any potential 

confusion about what type of auction 

information is disseminated. Currently, 

the broadcast message in simple 

Facilitation and Solicitation includes 

the series, price, and size of the Agency 

Order, and whether it is to buy or sell. 

As this information is helpful to auction 

participants, the Exchange believes that 

codifying this information into the 

simple Facilitation and Solicitation 

rules may encourage greater 

participation within these mechanisms, 

thereby increasing the opportunity for 

options orders to receive executions on 

the Exchange. The Exchange is not 

proposing any changes to the current 

content of the broadcast message but 

wants to make this clear in its rules, 

which, with this change, would be 

consistent with the rules of its affiliated 

exchanges that offer identical 

functionality.47 Likewise, the proposed 

change to add that a facilitation order 

would be cancelled at the end of the 

exposure period if an execution would 

take place at a price that is inferior to 

the best bid (offer) on the Exchange is 

intended to ensure compliance with the 

general prohibition on trade-throughs in 

Options 5, Section 2(a), and to ensure 

consistency across the rules of the 

Exchange and its affiliates that offer 

identical functionality.48

The proposed changes to replace 

‘‘must not exceed’’ with ‘‘will only be 

considered up to’’ in the simple 

Facilitation and PIM rules are intended 

to more accurately describe that the 

System will cap the size of Responses to 

the size of the agency order for purposes 

of allocation. The Exchange is not 

amending current System behavior; 

rather, the modifications will more 

clearly articulate the handling of 

Responses by the System. In addition, 

the proposed changes will serve to 

harmonize the simple and complex 

auction rules, thereby resulting in 

greater uniformity and ultimately less 

burdensome and more efficient 

regulatory compliance by market 

participants.49

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal to specify in the simple 

Facilitation and PIM rules that an 

initiating Member may elect to receive 

a percentage allocation lower than 40% 

is consistent with the Act. This feature 

provides an initiating Member that 

submits an order into Facilitation or 

PIM with the flexibility to configure its 

allocation percentage up to the full 40% 

entitlement. The Exchange notes that 

regardless of the Member’s instruction, 

the contra-side order would still be 

responsible for executing up to the full 

size of the agency order if there is not 

enough interest to execute the agency 

order at a particular price. The 

Exchange continues to believe that the 

40% allocation entitlement is consistent 

with the statutory standards for 

competition and free and open markets 

by promoting price competition within 

Facilitation and PIM as Members would 

still have a reasonable opportunity to 

compete for a significant percentage of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12768 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 

50See supra notes 24 and 35. 

51See supra note 28. 

52See supra note 29. 

53See supra note 36. 

54See supra note 38. 

55See BX Options 3, Section 11(a) (Block) and 

Section 15(c)(1) (AIQ). 

56See GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 

11(b)(1) (Facilitation broadcast message), Options 3, 

Section 11(d)(1) (Solicitation broadcast message), 

and Options 3, Section 11(b)(3) (Facilitation 

executions trade-through compliance). 

the incoming order. The Exchange also 

notes that the configurable 40% 

allocation entitlement for simple 

Facilitation and PIM is consistent with 

the configurable allocation entitlements 

in place on complex Facilitation and 

PIM as well as on its affiliated exchange, 

BX.50 Accordingly, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed changes will 

promote consistency across the 

rulebooks of exchanges offering 

identical functionality and within its 

own Rulebook as well. 

With respect to the proposed changes 

to the Facilitation and PIM auto-match 

feature, the Exchange is amending the 

current rule text so that it more 

accurately explains how the Exchange 

will allocate an order designated for 

auto-match today. As discussed above, 

the Exchange is not making any 

substantive changes to the allocation 

procedure itself; rather the proposed 

changes are intended to better align how 

this feature is described in the AutoMatch Filing.51 Similarly, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed change in 

Supplementary Material .01 to Options 

3, Section 11 to add the provision that 

any solicited contra orders entered by 

Members into the Facilitation 

Mechanism to trade against Agency 

Orders may not be for the account of a 

Nasdaq ISE Market Maker that is 

assigned to the options class will better 

align the rule text with related filing. As 

discussed above, this restriction was 

included in the approval order to the 

rule filing that allowed solicited 

transactions in the Facilitation 

Mechanism, so the Exchange will 

import that language into the rule text 

for greater transparency.52

The proposed change in 

Supplementary Material .04 to Options 

3, Section 13 to provide that PIMs will 

not queue or overlap in any manner, 

except as described in Options 3, 

Section 11(f) and (g) will make clear that 

two simple or complex PIM auctions are 

not permitted to run concurrently, but 

that a simple PIM auction may run 

concurrently with a complex PIM 

auction. The Exchange believes that this 

change will reduce any potential 

confusion around how simultaneous 

PIM auctions are processed by the 

System. 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed change to the TVA rule is a 

non-substantive change to say that any 

amount of TVA is permitted in complex 

PIM (in addition to all of the other 

complex auction mechanisms in 

Options 3, Section 11). This is a 

corrective change as the cross-cite to 

complex PIM within the TVA rule was 

inadvertently dropped in a prior filing 

that relocated the complex auction 

rules.53 As noted above, the Exchange’s 

complex auction mechanisms provide 

an opportunity for market participants 

to respond with better-priced interest 

that could execute against an Agency 

Order. Accordingly, the Exchange 

believes that it is appropriate to ensure 

that paired orders entered into complex 

Facilitation, Solicitation and PIM that 

are broken up due to better-priced 

interest are actually executed against 

such better-priced interest, and are not 

restricted from trading due to TVA 

settings of one or more Members. 

The Exchange believes its proposal to 

provide that AIQ will not apply during 

an Opening Process (i.e., the opening 

process or halt reopening process) will 

more accurately state how this 

functionality currently operates. AIQ 

prevents Market Makers from trading 

against their own quotes and orders. 

While the Exchange believes that this 

protection is useful for Market Makers 

to manage their trading during regular 

market hours, applying AIQ is 

unnecessary during an Opening Process 

due to the high level of control that 

Market Makers already exercise over 

their quotes during this process. 

Furthermore, the proposed AIQ changes 

will promote consistency with the 

rulebook of its affiliated exchange BX, 

which offers identical functionality.54

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal to provide that Exposure will 

initiate when an incoming order is 

priced at or through the ABBO, when 

the ABBO is better than the Exchange 

BBO, is consistent with the Act. As 

discussed above, the current language in 

Supplementary Material .02 only 

specifies that Exposure is initiated when 

the price of the incoming order is 

crossed with the ABBO (i.e., would 

result in an impermissible TradeThrough), but does not specify the 

scenario in Supplementary Material .01 

to Options 5, Section 3 when the price 

is locked. Supplementary Material .01 to 

Options 5, Section 3, however, also 

currently provides that when the price 

of an incoming limit order that is not 

executable upon entry would lock or 

cross a Protected Quotation, such order 

would be handled in accordance with 

the Exposure process in Supplementary 

Material .02 to Options 5, Section 2. As 

such, the proposed changes will 

enhance the accuracy of the rules by 

codifying both scenarios within the 

Exposure rule in Supplementary 

Material .02, and will continue to 

ensure that such order complies with 

the general prohibition on tradethroughs in Options 5, Section 2(a). 

The Exchange further believes that the 

technical changes it is proposing 

throughout Options 3 are nonsubstantive changes intended to 

enhance the accuracy of the Exchange’s 

Rulebook, which will alleviate potential 

confusion as to the applicability of its 

rules. As discussed above, these changes 

consist of updating internal rule 

lettering and cross-cites, and using 

correct terminology. Lastly, the 

Exchange believes that the harmonizing 

changes to add a new Options 4B in its 

Rulebook and to retitle General 4, each 

as discussed above, will serve to further 

harmonize its Rule numbering and 

titling with that of its affiliates, thereby 

promoting efficiency and conformity of 

its processes with those of its affiliated 

exchanges. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. As indicated 

above, no System changes to existing 

functionality are being made pursuant 

to this proposal; rather, this proposal is 

designed to reduce any potential 

investor confusion as to the features and 

applicability of certain functionality 

presently available on the Exchange. 

Therefore, the proposed changes are 

designed to enhance clarity and 

consistency in the Exchange’s Rulebook. 

Furthermore, many of the proposed 

changes seek to provide greater 

harmonization between the rules of the 

Exchange and its affiliates, and therefore 

promotes fair competition among the 

options exchanges. In particular, the 

proposed changes discussed above for 

Block and AIQ are based on BX rules 

governing identical functionality,55 and 

the Facilitation and Solicitation changes 

around broadcast message content and 

trade-through prohibition compliance 

(Facilitation only) are based on GEMX 

and MRX rules governing identical 

functionality.56 The Exchange notes that 

it operates in a highly competitive 

market in which market participants can 

readily direct order flow to competing 

venues who offer similar functionality. 

The Exchange believes that the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Notices 12769 

57 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

58 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. 59 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

proposed rule change will enhance 

competition among the various markets 

for auction execution, potentially 

resulting in more active trading in 

auction mechanisms across all options 

exchanges. 

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 57 and 

paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 

thereunder.58

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

should be approved or disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

ISE–2021–01 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–ISE–2021–01. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090 on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change. 

Persons submitting comments are 

cautioned that we do not redact or edit 

personal identifying information from 

comment submissions. You should 

submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–ISE–2021–01, and should 

be submitted on or before March 25, 

2021. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.59

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04428 Filed 3–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

NextGen Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the NextGen Advisory 

Committee (NAC). 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

virtually only, on March 18, 2021, from 

10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. EDT. Requests to 

attend the meeting virtually and request 

for accommodations for a disability 

must be received by March 5, 2021. If 

you wish to make a public statement 

during the meeting, you must submit a 

written copy of your remarks by March 

5, 2021. Requests to submit written 

materials, to be reviewed by NAC 

Members before the meeting, must be 

received no later than March 5, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a 

virtual meeting only. Virtual meeting 

information will be provided upon 

registration. Information on the NAC, 

including copies of previous meeting 

minutes is available on the NAC 

internet website at https://www.faa.gov/ 

about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ 

ang/nac/. Members of the public 

interested in attending must send the 

required information listed in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to 9-AWAANG-NACRegistration@faa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Schwab, NAC Coordinator, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, at 

gregory.schwab@faa.gov or 202–267– 

1201. Any requests or questions not 

regarding attendance registration should 

be sent to the person listed in this 

section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Secretary of Transportation 

established the NAC under agency 

authority in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 

Public Law 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to 

provide independent advice and 

recommendations to FAA, and to 

respond to specific taskings received 

directly from FAA. The NAC 

recommends consensus-driven advice 

for FAA consideration relating to Air 

Traffic Management System 

modernization. 

II. Agenda 

At the meeting, the agenda will cover 

the following topics: 

• NAC Chairman’s Report 

• FAA Report 

• NAC Subcommittee Chairman’s 

Report 

Æ Risk and Mitigations update for the 

following focus areas: Multiple 

Runway Operations, Data 

Communications, Performance 

Based Navigation, Surface and Data 

Sharing, and Northeast Corridor 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES