
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21657-21661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08471]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69329; File No. SR-ISE-2013-22]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange 
LLC; Order Approving, on an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change, as 
Modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, To Suspend Certain Market Maker 
Quotation Requirements and To Suspend Rule 720 Regarding Obvious Errors 
During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Securities That Underlie Options 
Traded on the ISE

April 5, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 8, 2013 the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the 
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to provide for how the Exchange 
proposes to treat market-making quoting obligations and trading errors 
in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market 
Volatility. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on March 18, 2013.\4\ On March 12, 2013, the Exchange 
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Exchange 
then submitted Amendment No. 2 on March 19, 2013.\6\ The Commission 
received one comment letter on the proposal.\7\ This order approves the

[[Page 21658]]

proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69110 (March 11, 
2013), 78 FR 16726 (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange submitted Exhibit 2 to the 
filing, which the Exchange inadvertently omitted when the filing was 
first submitted. Because the changes made in Amendment No. 1 do not 
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise 
any novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to 
notice and comment.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange noted that its Order 
Protection rule will continue to apply during Limit and Straddle 
States and represented that it would conduct its own analysis 
concerning the elimination of obvious error rule during Limit and 
Straddle States and agreed to provide the Commission with relevant 
data to assess the impact of the proposal. Because the changes made 
in Amendment No. 2 do not materially alter the substance of the 
proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory issues, Amendment 
No. 2 is not subject to notice and comment.
    \7\ See Letter to David Dimitrious, Senior Special Counsel, 
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, from Michael Simon, 
General Counsel, ISE, dated April 4, 2013 (``ISE Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe 
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large 
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant 
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices 
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\8\ This severe price 
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at 
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60% 
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6, 
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot 
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the 
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\9\ The single-stock circuit breaker was 
designed to reduce extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by 
imposing a five-minute trading pause when a trade was executed at a 
price outside of a specified percentage threshold.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint 
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC 
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory 
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,'' 
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \9\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) 
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September 
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange 
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September 
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of 
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011) 
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker 
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the 
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \11\ pursuant to 
Section 11A of the Act,\12\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\13\ which featured 
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit 
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange 
LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. 
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market 
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago 
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock 
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial 
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX 
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange, 
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the 
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule 
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE 
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent 
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified 
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper 
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an 
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the 
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best 
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \14\ are required 
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \15\ with 
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of 
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best 
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches 
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a 
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such 
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag 
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would 
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State, 
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety. 
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the 
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause, 
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single 
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for 
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the 
Exchange Act. See id.
    \15\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the 
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the 
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when 
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer) 
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not 
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario, 
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock 
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a 
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary 
market volatility.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading 
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce 
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the 
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the 
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to 
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the 
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted 
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an 
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer 
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer 
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to 
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with 
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing 
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year 
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\17\ The first phase of 
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 9. See also 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR 
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down 
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board 
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release 
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third 
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS 
Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \18\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra 
note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

1. Market Maker Quoting Obligations

    In light of the Plan, the Exchange has proposed to suspend the 
maximum quotation spread requirement for market maker quotes contained 
in Rule 803(b)(5) and the continuous market maker quotation 
requirements contained in Rule 804(e) when the security underlying an 
option class is in a Limit State or Straddle State. Concerning the 
calculation of a market maker's quoting obligation, the Exchange will 
not consider the time periods associated with Limit and Straddle States 
when evaluating whether a market maker complied with the continuous 
quotation requirements contained in Rule 804(e).
    The Exchange represented that market makers should be exempted from 
their continuous quoting obligations during Limit and Straddle states 
because during such periods, market makers could not be certain whether 
they could buy or sell an underlying security, or if they could, at 
what price or quantity. The Exchange's corresponding proposal to 
suspend the maximum quotation spread requirement during Limit or 
Straddle States is intended to encourage market makers to choose to 
provide liquidity during such states. According to the Exchange, 
allowing options market makers the flexibility to choose whether to 
enter quotes and to do so without spread restrictions is necessary to 
encourage market makers to provide liquidity in options classes 
overlying

[[Page 21659]]

securities that may enter a Limit State or Straddle State.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that all other requirements 
relating to market maker quotes will remain applicable to market makers 
that choose to enter quotes during a Limit or Straddle State. For 
instance, the Exchange represents that market makers would still be 
subject to the obligation to maintain fair and orderly markets in their 
appointed classes, and they would still be prohibited from making bids 
or offers or entering into transactions that are inconsistent with such 
course of dealings.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 4, 78 FR at 16728-16729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Obvious Error

    In connection with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange 
proposes to adopt new Rule 703A(d) to exclude transaction that occur 
during a Limit State or Straddle State from the obvious error or 
catastrophic error review, nullification, and adjustment procedures 
pursuant to Rule 720 for a one year pilot ending April 8, 2014.
    Rule 720 provides a process by which a transaction may be busted or 
adjusted when the execution price of a transaction deviates from the 
option's theoretical price by a certain amount. Under Rule 
720(a)(3)(i), the theoretical price is the national best bid price for 
the option with respect to a sell order and the national best offer for 
the option with respect to a buy order, just prior to the trade in 
question. In certain circumstances, Exchange officials have the 
discretion to determine the theoretical price pursuant to Rule 
720(a)(3)(ii).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Rule 720 provides that if there are no quotes from other 
options exchanges for comparison purposes, the theoretical price 
will be determined by designated personnel in the Exchange's market 
control center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that neither method is appropriate during a 
Limit State or Straddle State. According to the Exchange, during a 
Limit State or Straddle State, options prices may deviate substantially 
from those available prior to or following the state. The Exchange 
believes this provision would give rise to much uncertainty for market 
participants as there is no bright line definition of what the 
theoretical price should be for an option when the underlying NMS stock 
has an unexecutable bid or offer or both. Because the approach under 
Rule 720(a)(3)(i) by definition depends on a reliable NBBO, the 
Exchange does not believe that approach is appropriate during a Limit 
State or Straddle State.
    With respect to Rule 720(a)(3)(ii) affording discretion to 
designated personnel in the Exchange's market control center to 
determine the theoretical price, the Exchange notes that does not 
believe it would be reasonable for ISE personnel to derive theoretical 
prices to be applied to transactions executed during such unusual 
market conditions, given that options market makers and other industry 
professionals will have difficulty pricing options during Limit States 
and Straddle States.
    Ultimately, the Exchange believes the application of the current 
rule would be impracticable given the lack of a reliable national best 
bid or offer in the options market during Limit States and Straddle 
States, and would produce undesirable effects. The Exchange believes 
that adding certainty to the execution of orders in these situations 
should encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity 
to the Exchange, thus promoting fair and orderly markets. On balance, 
the Exchange believes that removing the potential inequity of 
nullifying or adjusting executions occurring during Limit States or 
Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits from applying these 
provisions during such unusual market conditions. In further support of 
its proposed rule change, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange noted that 
Rule 1901 (Order Protection) would continue to apply during Limit 
States and Straddle States. According to the Exchange, the application 
of Rule 1901 would mean that only orders identified as Intermarket 
Sweep Orders will trade through protected bids and offers during Limit 
and Straddle States, and as a result, the only trades that would 
potentially have been reviewed under Rule 720 during Limit and Straddle 
States are those involving Intermarket Sweep Orders.
    Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt 703A(d) to provide that 
transactions executed during a Limit State or Straddle State are not 
subject to the provisions of Rule 720.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule 
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and 
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities 
exchange.\21\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ which, 
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so 
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of 
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated 
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and 
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and is designed 
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote 
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and 
coordination with persons engaged in regulation, clearing, settling, 
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions 
in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has 
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to suspend a market maker's 
obligations when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down 
state is consistent with the Act. During a limit up-limit down state, 
there may not be a reliable price for the underlying security to serve 
as a benchmark for market makers to price options. In addition, the 
absence of an executable bid or offer for the underlying security will 
make it more difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale 
of an option. Given these significant changes to the normal operating 
conditions of market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's 
decision to suspend a market maker's obligations in these limited 
circumstances is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a 
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in 
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission 
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will 
continue monitoring the quoting requirements that are being amended in 
this proposed rule change and determine if any necessary adjustments 
are required to ensure that they remain consistent with the Act.
    In addition, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rule 
change to exclude transactions that occur during a Limit State or 
Straddle State from the obvious error or catastrophic error review, 
nullification, and adjustment procedures pursuant to Rule 720 is 
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder applicable to

[[Page 21660]]

a national securities exchange. Specifically, the Commission finds that 
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in that 
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and 
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster 
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, 
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and 
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the filing, the Exchange notes its belief that excluding 
transactions executed during a Limit State or Straddle State from the 
provisions of Rule 720 will ensure that limit orders that are filled 
during a Limit or Straddle State will have certainty of execution in a 
manner that promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes 
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market 
and a national market system. The Exchange believes the application of 
the current rule would be impracticable given what it perceives will be 
the lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market during Limit States 
and Straddle States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., busted 
trades or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate given market 
conditions. In addition, given the Exchange's view that options prices 
during Limit States or Straddle States may deviate substantially from 
those available shortly following the Limit State or Straddle State, 
the Exchange believes that providing market participants time to re-
evaluate a transaction executed during a Limit or Straddle State will 
create an unreasonable adverse selection opportunity that will 
discourage participants from providing liquidity during Limit States or 
Straddle States.
    The Exchange, however, has proposed this rule change based on its 
expectations about the quality of the options market during Limit 
States and Straddle States. The Exchange states, for example, that it 
believes that application of the obvious and catastrophic error rules 
would be impracticable given the potential for lack of a reliable NBBO 
in the options market during Limit States and Straddle States. Given 
the Exchange's recognition of the potential for unreliable NBBOs in the 
options markets during Limit States and Straddle States, the Commission 
is concerned about the extent to which investors may rely to their 
detriment on the quality of quotations and price discovery in the 
options markets during these periods. This concern is heightened by the 
Exchange's proposal to exclude transactions that occur during a Limit 
State or Straddle State from the obvious error or catastrophic error 
review procedures pursuant to Rule 720. The Commission urges investors 
and market professionals to exercise caution when considering trading 
options under these circumstances. Broker-dealers also should be 
mindful of their obligations to customers that may or may not be aware 
of specific options market conditions or the underlying stock market 
conditions when placing their orders.
    While the Commission remains concerned about the quality of the 
options market during the Limit and Straddle States, and the potential 
impact on investors of executing in this market without the protections 
of the obvious or catastrophic error rules that are being suspended 
during the Limit and Straddle States, it believes that certain aspects 
of the proposal could help mitigate those concerns.
    First, despite the removal of obvious and catastrophic error 
protection during Limit States and Straddle States, the Exchange states 
that there are additional measures in place designed to protect 
investors. For example, the Exchange states that by rejecting market 
orders and cancelling pending market orders, only those orders with a 
limit price will be executed during a Limit State or Straddle State. 
The Exchange also notes that, pursuant to ISE Rule 705(d), the Exchange 
may compensate Members for losses resulting directly from the 
malfunction of the Exchange's systems, and that this protection is 
independent from ISE Rule 720. Additionally, the Exchange notes the 
existence of SEC Rule 15c3-5 requiring broker-dealers to have controls 
and procedures in place that are reasonably designed to prevent the 
entry of erroneous orders. Finally, with respect to limit orders that 
will be executable during Limit States and Straddle States, the 
Exchange states that it applies price checks to limit orders that are 
priced sufficiently far through the NBBO. Therefore, on balance, the 
Exchange believes that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or 
adjusting executions occurring during Limit States or Straddle States 
outweighs any potential benefits from applying Rule 720 during such 
unusual market conditions.
    The Exchange also noted that during the pilot period it will 
evaluate whether adopting a provision that permits the Exchange to 
review trades on its own motion trades during Limit and Straddle states 
is necessary and appropriate.
    Finally, the Exchange has proposed that the changes be implemented 
on a one year pilot basis. The Commission believes that it is important 
to implement the proposal as a pilot. The one year pilot period will 
allow the Exchange time to assess the impact of the Plan on the options 
marketplace and allow the Commission to further evaluate the effect of 
the proposal prior to any proposal or determination to make the changes 
permanent. To this end, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange has committed 
to: (1) evaluate the options market quality during Limit States and 
Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order flow and 
transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review 
any complaints from members and their customers concerning executions 
during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the Exchange has 
agreed to provide the Commission with data requested to evaluate the 
impact of the elimination of the obvious error rule, including data 
relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above. On April 4, 
2013, the Exchange submitted a letter stating that it would provide 
specific data to the Commission and the public and certain analysis to 
the Commission to evaluate the impact of Limit States and Straddle 
States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets.\24\

[[Page 21661]]

This will allow the Commission, the Exchange, and other interested 
parties to evaluate the quality of the options markets during Limit 
States and Straddle States and to assess whether the additional 
protections noted by the Exchange are sufficient safeguards against the 
submission of erroneous trades, and whether the Exchange's proposal 
appropriately balances the protection afforded to an erroneous order 
sender against the potential hazards associated with providing market 
participants additional time to review trades submitted during a Limit 
State or Straddle State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In particular, the Exchange represented that, at least two 
months prior to the end of the one year pilot period of proposed 
Rule 703A(d), it would provide to the Commission an evaluation of 
(i) the statistical and economic impact of Straddle States on 
liquidity and market quality in the options market and (ii) whether 
the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Limit States 
and Straddle States are problematic. In addition, the Exchange 
represented that each month following the adoption of the proposed 
rule change it would provide to the Commission and the public a 
dataset containing certain data elements for each Limit State and 
Straddle State in optionable stocks. The Exchange stated that the 
options included in the dataset will be those that meet the 
following conditions: (i) the options are more than 20% in the money 
(strike price remains greater than 80% of the last stock trade price 
for calls and strike price remains greater than 120% of the last 
stock trade price for puts when the Limit State or Straddle State is 
reached); (ii) the option has at least two trades during the Limit 
State or Straddle State; and (iii) the top ten options (as ranked by 
overall contract volume on that day) meeting the conditions listed 
above. For each of those options affected, each dataset will 
include, among other information: stock symbol, option symbol, time 
at the start of the Limit State or Straddle State and an indicator 
for whether it is a Limit State or Straddle State. For activity on 
the Exchange in the relevant options, the Exchange has agreed to 
provide executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average 
quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low execution 
price, number of trades for which a request for review for error was 
received during Limit States and Straddle States, an indicator 
variable for whether those options outlined above have a price 
change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit State or 
Straddle State compared to the last available option price as 
reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle state (1 
if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator variable for 
whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock 
leaving the Limit State or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 
30% away from the price before the start of the Limit State or 
Straddle State. See ISE Letter, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 
19(b)(2) of the Act \25\ for approving the proposed rule change on an 
accelerated basis. This proposal is related to the Plan, which will 
become operative on April 8, 2013. Without accelerated approval, the 
proposed rule change would take effect after the Plan's implementation 
date. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists for 
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments Nos. 1 
and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 
\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2013-22), as modified by 
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08471 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


