[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40812-40816]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81457; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Rules 11.6, Definitions, 11.8, Order Types, and 11.10, Order Execution

August 22, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 11, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to: (i) Add new optional
functionality to orders that include the Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction by amending paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6,
Definitions; (ii) amend paragraph (b)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.8 to
specify that a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may be included
on a Limit Order with a TIF of IOC; and (iii) amend paragraph (e)(3) of
Exchange Rule 11.10, Order Execution, to specify that a change to the
minimum quantity of an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction may be included in a Replace message. The proposed
amendments are substantially similar to the rules of the Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e) (defining Minimum Quantity). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73959 (December 30, 2014),
80 FR 582 (January 6, 2015) (order approving new optional
functionality for Minimum Quantity Orders). See IEX Rule
11.190(b)(11) and Supplementary Material .03 (defining Minimum
Quantity Orders and MinExec with Cancel Remaining and MinExec with
AON Remaining). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101
(June 17, 2016), 81 FR 41141 (June 23, 2016) (order approving the
IEX exchange application, which included IEX's Minimum Quantity
Orders). See also IEX Rule 11.190(d)(3) (allowing the minimum
quantity size of an order to be changed via a replace message).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Add new optional functionality to
orders that include the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction by
amending paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6, Definitions; (ii) amend
paragraph (b)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.8 to specify that a Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction may be included on a Limit Order with a
TIF of IOC; and (iii) amend paragraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.10,
Order Execution, to specify that a change to the minimum quantity of an
order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may be included in
a Replace message. These proposed amendments are substantially similar
to the rules of Nasdaq and IEX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.6(h), Proposed Individual Minimum Size
    The Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would
enhance the utility of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction by
amending paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6, Definitions. In sum, the
proposal would permit an incoming order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity to forego executions where multiple resting orders could
otherwise be aggregated to satisfy the order's minimum quantity.
    A Minimum Execution Quantity enables a User \7\ to specify a
minimum share amount at which the order will execute. An order with a
Minimum Execution Quantity will not execute unless the volume of
contra-side liquidity available to execute against the order meets or
exceeds the designated minimum. Specifically, Minimum Execution
Quantity is an instruction a User may attach to an order with a Non-
Displayed \8\ instruction or a TIF of IOC \9\ requiring the System \10\
to execute the order only to the extent that a minimum quantity can be
satisfied by execution against a single order or multiple aggregated
orders simultaneously.\11\ Today, an order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity will execute upon entry against a single order or multiple
orders if the sum of those orders is equal to or greater than its
minimum quantity. An order with a Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction may be partially executed upon entry so long as the
execution size is equal to or exceeds the minimum quantity provided in
the instruction. Any shares remaining after a partial execution will
continue to be executed at a size that is equal to or exceeds the
quantity provided in the instruction. Where the number of shares

remaining after a partial execution are less than the quantity provided
in the instruction, the Minimum Execution Quantity shall be equal to
the number of shares remaining. The Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction may be coupled with Market Orders with a TIF of IOC,\12\
Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction \13\ or TIF of IOC (as
discussed below), Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISO'') with a TIF of
IOC,\14\ MidPoint Peg Orders,\15\ and Supplemental Peg Orders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \8\ The term ``Non-Displayed'' is defined as ``[a]n instruction
the User may attach to an order stating that the order is not to be
displayed by the System on the EDGX Book.'' See Exchange Rule
11.6(e)(2).
    \9\ As discussed below, the Exchange also proposes to clarify
within Rule 11.6(h) that a Minimum Quantity instruction may also be
added to an order with a TIF of IOC. See e.g., Exchange Rules
11.8(a)(3) and (c)(2) (specifying that the Minimum Quantity
instruction may be included on Market Orders and ISOs with a TIF of
IOC).
    \10\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(cc).
    \11\ Today, the System will aggregate multiple resting orders to
satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity and a User cannot
elect the incoming order to execute against a single resting contra-
side order.
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(3).
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(3).
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(2).
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(2).
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has observed that some market participants avoid
sending large orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to
the Exchange out of concern that such orders may interact with small
orders entered by professional traders, possibly adversely impacting
the execution of their larger order. Institutional orders are often
much larger in size than the average order in the marketplace. To
facilitate the liquidation or acquisition of a large position, market
participants tend to submit multiple orders into the market that may
only represent a fraction of the overall institutional position to be
executed. Various strategies used by institutional market participants
to execute large orders are intended to limit price movement of the
security at issue. Executing in small sizes, even if in the aggregate
it meets the order's minimum quantity, may impact the market for that
security such that the additional orders the market participant has yet
to enter into the market may be more costly to execute. If an
institution is able to execute in larger sizes, the contra-party to the
execution is less likely to be a participant that reacts to short term
changes in the stock price, and as such, the price impact to the stock
may be less acute when larger individual executions are obtained.\17\
As a result, these orders are often executed away from the Exchange in
dark pools or other exchanges that offer the same functionality as
proposed herein,\18\ or via broker-dealer internalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission has long recognized this concern:
``[a]nother type of implicit transaction cost reflected in the price
of a security is short-term price volatility caused by temporary
imbalances in trading interest. For example, a significant implicit
cost for large investors (who often represent the consolidated
investments of many individuals) is the price impact that their
large trades can have on the market. Indeed, disclosure of these
large orders can reduce the likelihood of their being filled.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42450 (February 23, 2000), 65 FR
10577, 10581 (February 28, 2000) (SR-NYSE-99-48).
    \18\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To attract larger orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity, the
Exchange proposes to add new optional functionality that would enhance
the utility of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction. In sum, the
proposal would permit a User to elect that its incoming order with a
Minimum Execution Quantity execute solely against one or more resting
individual orders, each of which must satisfy the order's minimum
quantity condition. In such case, the order would forego executions
where multiple resting orders could otherwise be aggregated to satisfy
the order's minimum quantity, but do not individually satisfy the
minimum quantity condition.\19\ As discussed above, under the current
rule an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity will execute upon entry
against any number of smaller contra-side orders that, in aggregate,
meet the minimum quantity set by the User. This default behavior will
remain. For example, assume there are two orders to sell resting on the
EDGX Book \20\--the first for 300 shares and a second for 400 shares,
with the 300 share order having time priority ahead of the 400 share
order. If a User entered an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity to
buy 1,000 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity of 500 shares, and
the order was marketable against the two resting sell orders for 300
and 400 shares, the System would aggregate both sell orders for
purposes of meeting the minimum quantity, thus resulting in executions
of 300 shares and then 400 shares respectively with the remaining 300
shares of the an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity being posted
to the EDGX Book with a minimum quantity restriction of 300 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ If no election is made, the System will aggregate multiple
resting orders to satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity.
    \20\ The term ``EDGX Book'' is defined as ``the System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new optional functionality will not allow aggregation
of smaller executions to satisfy the minimum quantity of an incoming
order with a Minimum Execution Quantity. Using the same scenario as
above, but with the proposed new functionality and a Minimum Execution
Quantity requirement of 400 shares selected by the User, the order with
a Minimum Execution Quantity would not execute against the two sell
orders because the 300 share order with time priority at the top of the
EDGX Book is less than the incoming order's 400 share Minimum Execution
Quantity. The new functionality will cause the order with a Minimum
Execution Quantity to be cancelled or posted to the EDGX Book, Non-
Displayed, in accordance with the characteristics of the underlying
order type \21\ when encountering an order with time priority that is
of insufficient size to satisfy the minimum execution requirement. If
posted, the order with a Minimum Execution Quantity will operate as it
does currently and will only execute against individual orders that
satisfy its minimum quantity as proposed herein. The Exchange notes
that the User entering the order with a Minimum Execution Quantity has
expressed its intention not to execute against liquidity below a
certain minimum size, and therefore, cedes execution priority when it
would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were
not for the minimum execution size restriction. The Exchange proposes
to add language to paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 to make clear that the
order would cede execution priority in such in scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 11 through 16 for a description of the
functionality associated with orders that may include a Minimum
Execution Quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, the description of Minimum Execution Quantity under
paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 would set forth the default
behavior of the Minimum Quantity instruction of executing upon entry
against a single order or multiple aggregated orders simultaneously.
Amended Rule 11.6(h) would set forth the proposed optional
functionality where a User may alternatively specify that the incoming
order's minimum quantity condition be satisfied by each order resting
on the EDGX Book that would execute against the order with the Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction. If there are such orders, but there are
also orders that do not satisfy the minimum quantity condition, the
incoming order with the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will
execute against orders resting on the EDGX Book in accordance with Rule
11.9, Order Priority, until it reaches an order that does not satisfy
the minimum quantity condition at which point it would be posted to the
EDGX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order. If,
upon entry, there are no orders that satisfy the minimum quantity
condition resting on the EDGX Book, the order will either be posted to
the EDGX Book or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the order.
    The Exchange also proposes to re-price incoming orders with a
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction where that order may cross an
order posted on the EDGX Book. Specifically, where there is
insufficient size to satisfy an

incoming order's minimum quantity condition and that incoming order, if
posted at its limit price, would cross an order(s) resting on the EDGX
Book, the order with the minimum quantity condition will be re-priced
to and ranked at the Locking Price.\22\ For example, an order to buy at
$11.00 with a minimum quantity condition of 500 shares is entered and
there is an order resting on the EDGX Book to sell 200 shares at
$10.99. The resting order to sell does not contain sufficient size to
satisfy the incoming order's minimum quantity condition of 500 shares.
The price of the incoming buy order, if posted to the EDGX Book, would
cross the price of the resting sell order. In such case, to avoid an
internally crossed book, the System will re-price the incoming buy
order to $10.99, the Locking Price. This behavior is similar to how the
Exchange currently reprices Non-Displayed orders that cross the
Protected Quotation of an external market.\23\ In addition, both IEX
and Nasdaq also re-price similar orders to avoid an internally crossed
book.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Locking Price'' is defined as ``[t]he price at which an
order to buy (sell), that if displayed by the System on the EDGX
Book, either upon entry into the System, or upon return to the
System after being routed away, would be a Locking Quotation.'' See
Exchange Rule 11.6(f).
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3).
    \24\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e). See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule would further be amended to account for the partial
execution against an individual order in accordance with the proposed
rule change. Specifically, paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 would
further be amended to state that that an order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity instruction may be partially executed so long as the execution
size of the individual order or aggregate size of multiple orders, as
applicable, are equal to or exceed the minimum quantity provided in the
instruction.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the description of the Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction to clarify its operation upon order
entry and when the order is posted to the EDGX Book. The Exchange
proposes to clarify that upon entry, and by default, an order with a
Minimum Execution Quantity will execute against a single order or
multiple aggregated orders simultaneously or only against orders that
individually satisfy the order's minimum quantity condition, as
proposed herein. Once posted to the EDGX Book,\25\ the order may only
execute against individual incoming orders with a size that satisfies
the minimum quantity condition. The Exchange also proposed to clarify
that an order that includes a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction is
not eligible to be routed to another Trading Center in accordance with
Exchange Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers. These proposed
changes would add additional specificity to the operation of the
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction and are consistent with similar
functionality offered by IEX and Nasdaq.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Orders will only post to the EDGX Book if they are
designated with a TIF instruction that allows for posting. For
example, an order a TIF of IOC or FOK will never post to the EDGX
Book.
    \26\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(3), Limit Order Clarification
    The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (b)(3) of Exchange
Rule 11.8 to specify that a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may
be included on a Limit Order with a TIF of IOC. Currently, paragraph
(b)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.8 states that Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction may be placed on a Limit Order with a Non-Displayed
instruction. As stated above, the Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction may be coupled with, among other order types, Market Orders
with a TIF of IOC and ISOs with a TIF of IOC. A Limit Order with a TIF
of IOC will never be displayed or posted on the EDGX Book because, by
instruction, it is to only execute upon entry, route or cancel back to
the User and will never be posted to the EDGX Book.\27\ Therefore,
current functionality allows a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction
to be included on a Limit Order with a TIF of IOC, as that order would
not be displayed on the EDGX Book. The Exchange now seeks to add
additional specificity to paragraph (b)(3) of Exchange Rule 11.6 to
expressly state that a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may be
included on a Limit Order with a TIF of IOC. The Exchange notes that
this is also consistent with the treatment of Minimum Quantity Orders
on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'').\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(1).
    \28\ See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(5) (stating that BZX will only honor a
specified minimum quantity on BZX Only Orders that are non-displayed
or IOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.10(e)(3), Replace Messages
    The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10,
Order Execution, to specify that a change to the minimum quantity of an
order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may be included in
a Replace message. The rule currently states that other than changing a
Limit Order to a Market Order, only the price, Stop Price,\29\ the sell
long indicator, Short Sale instruction,\30\ Max Floor \31\ and quantity
terms of the order may be changed with a Replace message.\32\ As
amended, paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10 would also provide for a change
to the minimum quantity of an order to be included in a Replace
message.\33\ If a User desires to change any other terms of an existing
order, the existing order must be cancelled and a new order must be
entered. The Exchange notes that specifying within Rule 11.10(e)(3)
that a change to the minimum quantity of an order may be included in a
Replace message is consistent with current functionality offered by
IEX.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Exchange Rules 11.8(a)(1) and (b)(1).
    \30\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(o).
    \31\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(m)(1).
    \32\ The Exchange also proposes to amend this paragraph to
specify that the Max Floor is associated with an order with a
Reserve Quantity and to replace the phrase ``and quantity terms''
with the word ``size''. The Exchange believes these changes will add
additional specificity to the rule and ensure the rule uses
terminology consistent with the description of Replace messages and
their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(4).
    \33\ A change to the minimum quantity of an order via a Replace
message will result in such order losing time priority as compared
to other orders in the EDGX Book and the time stamp for such order
being revised to reflect the time of the modification.
    \34\ See IEX Rule 11.190(d)(3) (allowing a replace message to
change the minimum quantity of a Minimum Quantity Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \35\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \36\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 11.6(h), Proposed Individual Minimum Size
    The proposed rule change would remove impediments to and promote
just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide Users
with optional functionality that enhances the use of the Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction. The proposed change to the functioning
of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will provide market
participants, including institutional firms who ultimately represent
individual retail investors in

many cases, with better control over their orders, thereby providing
them with greater potential to improve the quality of their order
executions. Currently, the rule allows Users to designate a minimum
acceptable quantity on an order that may aggregate multiple executions
to meet the minimum quantity requirement. Once posted to the book,
however, the minimum quantity requirement is equivalent to a minimum
execution size requirement. The Exchange is now proposing to provide
Users with control over the execution of their orders with a Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction by allowing them an option to designate
the minimum individual execution size upon entry. The control offered
by the proposed change is consistent with the various types of control
currently provided by exchange order types. For example, the Exchange
and other exchanges offer limit orders, which allow a market
participant control over the price it will pay or receive for a
stock.\37\ Similarly, exchanges offer order types that allow market
participants to structure their trading activity in a manner that is
more likely to avoid certain transaction cost related economic
outcomes.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(b).
    \38\ For example, the Exchange's Post Only instruction. See
Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the functionality proposed herein would enable
Users to avoid transacting with smaller orders that they believe
ultimately increases the cost of the transaction. Because the Exchange
does not have this functionality, market participants, such as large
institutions that transact a large number of orders on behalf of retail
investors, have avoided sending large orders to the Exchange to avoid
potentially more expensive transactions.\39\ In this regard, the
Exchange notes that the proposed new optional functionality may improve
the Exchange's market by attracting more order flow. Such new order
flow will further enhance the depth and liquidity on the Exchange,
which supports just and equitable principals of trade. Furthermore, the
proposed modification to the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction is
consistent with providing market participants with greater control over
the nature of their executions so that they may achieve their trading
goals and improve the quality of their executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As noted, the proposal is designed to attract liquidity to
the Exchange by allowing market participants to designate a minimum
size of a contra-side order to interact with, thus providing them
with functionality available to them on dark markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that re-pricing incoming orders with a
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction where that order may cross an
order posted on the EDGX Book promotes just and equitable principles of
trade because it enables the Exchange to avoid an internally crossed
book. The proposed re-pricing is also similar to how the Exchange
currently reprices Non-Displayed orders that cross the Protected
Quotation of an external market.\40\ In addition, both IEX and Nasdaq
also re-price minimum quantity orders to avoid an internally crossed
book. In certain circumstances, Nasdaq re-prices buy (sell) orders to
one minimum price increment below (above) the lowest (highest) price of
such orders.\41\ IEX re-prices non-displayed orders, such as minimum
quantity orders, that include a limit price more aggressive than the
midpoint of the NBBO to the midpoint of the NBBO.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3).
    \41\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e).
    \42\ See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed optional functionality for the Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction is substantially similar to that offered
by Nasdaq and IEX, both of which have been recently approved by the
Commission.\43\ Lastly, the proposed clarifications of the handing
[sic] of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity upon entry and once
posted to the EDGX Book would add additional specificity to the
operation of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction and are
consistent with similar functionality offered by Nasdaq.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 5. The Exchange also notes that a letter was
submitted in strong support of Nasdaq at the time they proposed
similar changes to the operation of their Minimum Quantity order
attribute under Nasdaq Rule 4703(e). See letter to the Commission
from James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, Georgetown
University, dated November 26, 2014.
    \44\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarification to Exchange Rules 11.8(b)(3) and 11.10(e)(3)
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(3)
of Rule 11.8 and paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10 are also consistent
with the Act in that they will add additional specificity to the rules.
In particular, the proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(3) to Rule 11.8
would add additional specificity regarding the order type instructions
that may be coupled with a Limit Order. The Exchange notes that this is
also consistent with the treatment of Minimum Quantity Orders on
BZX,\45\ thereby making the rule clearer and avoiding potential
investor confusion. Also, the amendments to paragraph (e)(3) of Rule
11.10 will ensure the rule uses terminology consistent with the
description of Replace messages and their impact on an order's priority
under Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(4). Also, the Exchange notes that
specifying within Rule 11.10(e)(3) that a change to the minimum
quantity of an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may
be included in a Replace message is consistent with current
functionality offered by IEX.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(5) (stating that BZX will only honor a
specified minimum quantity on BZX Only Orders that are non-displayed
or IOCs).
    \46\ See IEX Rule 11.190(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On
the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes
competition because it will enable the Exchange to offer functionality
substantially similar to that offered by Nasdaq and IEX.\47\ In
addition, the proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 11.8 and
paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 11.10 would not have any impact on competition
as they simply add additional details to each rule and do not alter
current System functionality. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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) of the

Act \48\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\49\ the
Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The
Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \49\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-34 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-BatsEDGX-2017-34. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-34 and should
be submitted on or before September 18, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\50\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18127 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26322-26324]
[DOCID:fr09my07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0880; FRL-8125-5]

Foramsulfuron; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of foramsulfuron on corn, sweet (K+CWHR);
corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, stover; corn, pop grain; and corn,
pop, stover when applied/used as a herbicide. The Interregional Project
Number 4 (IR-4) submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of foramsulfuron.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 9, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 9, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0880. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office

of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in [insert appropriate
cite to either another unit in the preamble or a section in a rule]. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0880 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before July 9, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0880, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67574) (FRL-
8102-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
tolerance petition (PP 5E7004) by IR-4, 500 College Road, East, Suite
201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1219
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of foramsulfuron on corn, sweet (K+CWHR); corn,
sweet, forage; corn, sweet, stover; corn, pop grain; and corn, pop,
stover. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
registrant Bayer CropScience. There was one comment submitted by a
private citizen who opposed the authorization to sell any pesticide
that leaves a residue on food. The Agency has received this comment on
numerous occasions and rejects it for the reason previously stated in
the Federal Register of January 7, 2005, (70 FR 1349) (FRL-7694-3).
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to
mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which
there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration
to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue
in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    The Agency determined the toxicological profile for foramsulfuron
supports a tolerance exemption as result of the lack of toxicity
associated with this chemical. For conclusive information on
foramsulfuron's toxicity profile, please view the final rule published
in the Federal Register of March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15120), (FRL-6829-8)
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2002/March/Day-29/p7502.htmtp).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).
    Due to the low toxicity, it was determined that a dietary aggregate
exposure risk assessment (food and water) is not needed. Therefore, an
aggregate dietary assessment was not conducted. For more information on
this determination, please view the final rule published in the Federal
Register of March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15120), (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2002/March/Day-29/p7502.htmtp
).

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects'' of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to foramsulfuron and any
other substances, and foramsulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that foramsulfuron has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
.

VI. Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    1. In general. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA
risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure
(MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.
Since a dietary risk assessment was not conducted for foramsulfuron due
to its low toxicity, a safety factor for infants and children is not
applicable to the determination of the risk due to exposure of infants
and children to foramsulfuron.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No significant toxicity or
prenatal or postnatal toxicity was seen in any of the studies conducted
with foramsulfuron.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity database for
foramsulfuron. Since a dietary risk assessment was not

conducted for foramsulfuron due to its low toxicity, a safety factor
for infants and children is not applicable to the determination of the
risk due to exposure of infants and children to foramsulfuron.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the information in this preamble and the final rule
published in the Federal Register of March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15120), EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to foramsulfuron residues.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    No special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential
of foramsulfuron to induce estrogenic or their endocrine effects.
However, no evidence of estrogenic or other endocrine effects have been
noted in any of the standard toxicology studies that have been
conducted with this product. Hence, there is no reason to suspect that
any such effects would be likely.

B. Analytical Method

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. Existing Tolerances

    There is an existing exemption for field corn.

D. International Tolerances

    There are no established or proposed Codex maximum residue limits
for foramsulfuron.

IX. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption is established for foramsulfuron in/on
corn, sweet (K+CWHR); corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, stover; corn,
pop grain; and corn, pop, stover.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and
exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under
section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do
not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.1219 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1219  Foramsulfuron; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    The pesticide foramsulfuron (N,N-dimethyl-2-[3-(4,6-dimethoxy-
pyrimidin-2- yl)ureidosulfonyl]-4-formylaminobenzamide) is exempted
from the requirement of a tolerance in corn, field, grain; corn, field,
forage; corn, field, stover; corn, sweet (K+CWHR); corn, sweet, forage;
corn, sweet, stover; corn, pop grain; and corn, pop, stover when
applied as a herbicide in accordance with good agricultural practices.
[FR Doc. E7-8901 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18628-18629]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0229]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to
award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease
product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined
that UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), manufactured by United Therapeutics
Corporation, meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product
application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), added
by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare
pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA
has determined that UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), manufactured by United
Therapeutics Corporation, meets the criteria for a priority review
voucher. UNITUXIN (dinutuximab) is indicated, in combination with
granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interleukin-
2 (IL-2), and 13-cis-retinoic acid (RA), for the treatment of pediatric
patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who achieve at least a partial
response to prior first-line multiagent, multimodality therapy.
Neuroblastoma is the most common pediatric solid tumor occurring
outside the brain, and it is the most common cancer in infants.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm.
    For further information about UNITUXIN (dinutuximab), go to the
Drugs@FDA Web site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm.

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08014 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 4164-01-P