[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 8381-8382]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57289; File No. SR-Amex-2008-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Amex Rule 3-AEMI

February 7, 2008.
    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 January 31, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 3-AEMI to include
provisions regarding the prevention of the misuse of material nonpublic
information by members, member organizations, or persons associated
with such members, pursuant to the Act. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.Amex.com.

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. Amex 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to amend Amex Rule 3-AEMI to include
provisions regarding the prevention of the misuse of material nonpublic
information by members, member organizations, or persons associated
with such members, pursuant to section 15(f) of the Act.\5\ section
15(f) requires that every registered broker or dealer establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed, taking into consideration the nature of such broker's or
dealer's business, to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic
information by such broker or dealer or any person associated with such
broker or dealer. The Commission previously approved proposals by the
Amex to amend non-AEMI Amex Rule 3 to require members to establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures to prevent the
misuse of material nonpublic information.\6\ This filing proposes to
update Amex Rule 3-AEMI to adopt the rules in non-AEMI Amex Rule 3
concerning the prevention of the misuse of material nonpublic
information, as previously approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(f).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-54983 (Dec. 20,
2006), 71 FR 78476 (Dec. 29, 2006) (File No. SR-Amex-2006-86). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55187 (Jan. 29, 2007),
72 FR 5467 (Feb. 6, 2007) (File No. SR-Amex-2006-110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) \8\ in particular, in that it would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in a manner
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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:
    (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, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange provided the Commission with 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 the filing of the proposed rule
change.
    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay
would enable the Exchange to implement and enforce the new provisions
relating to the prevention of the misuse of material nonpublic
information in Amex Rule 3-AEMI immediately. For this reason, the
Commission therefore designates the

proposal to become operative immediately.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2008-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2008-06 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2614 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65103-65105]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90121; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Related to the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker in Rule 11.18

October 8, 2020.
    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 October 6, 2020, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposal to extend the pilot related to the market-wide circuit breaker
in Rule 11.18. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/byx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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
    BYX Rules 11.18(a) through (d), (f) and (g) describe the
methodology for determining when to halt trading in all stocks due to
extraordinary market volatility, i.e., market-wide circuit breakers.
The market-wide circuit breaker (``MWCB'') mechanism was approved by
the Commission to operate on a pilot basis, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\5\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan. In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the LULD
Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot, basis.\6\ In
light of the proposal to make the LULD Plan permanent, the Exchange
amended Rule 11.18 to untie the pilot's effectiveness from that of the
LULD Plan and to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the close of
business on October 18, 2019.\7\ The Exchange subsequently amended Rule
11.18 to extend the pilot's effectiveness for an additional year to the
close of business on October 18, 2020.\8\ The Exchange now proposes to
amend Rule 11.18 to extend the pilot to the close of business on
October 18, 20201. This filing does not propose any substantive or
additional changes to Rule 11.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85665 (April 16,
2019), 84 FR 16749 (April 22, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-004).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87343 (October 18,
2019), 84 FR 57104 (October 24, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market-wide circuit breaker under Rule 11.18 provides an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during a period of significant stress when
securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines. All U.S.
equity exchanges and FINRA adopted uniform rules on a pilot basis
relating to market-wide circuit breakers in 2012 (``MWCB Rules''),
which are designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement
through coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe
price declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity.\9\
Market-wide circuit breakers provide for trading halts in all equities
and options markets during a severe market decline as measured by a
single-day decline in the S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``MWCB
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 11.18, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7%
(Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that
triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt

after 9:30 a.m. ET and before 3:25 p.m. ET would halt market-wide
trading for 15 minutes, while a similar market decline at or after 3:25
p.m. ET would not halt market-wide trading. A market decline that
triggers a Level 3 halt, at any time during the trading day, would halt
market-wide trading for the remainder of the trading day.
    Since the MWCB pilot was last extended in October 2019, the MWCB
mechanism has proven itself to be an effective tool for protecting
markets through turbulent times. In the Spring of 2020, at the outset
of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. equities markets experienced
four MWCB Level 1 halts, on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each
instance, the markets halted as intended upon a 7% drop in the S&P 500
Index, and resumed as intended 15 minutes later.
    In response to these events, the previously-convened MWCB Taskforce
(``Taskforce'') reviewed the March 2020 halts and considered whether
any immediate changes to the MWCB mechanism should be made. The
Taskforce, consisting of representatives from equities exchanges,
futures exchanges, FINRA, broker-dealers, and other market
participants, had been assembled in early 2020 to consider more
generally potential changes to the MWCB mechanism. The Taskforce held
ten meetings in the Spring and Summer of 2020 that were attended by
Commission staff to consider, among other things: (1) Whether to retain
the S&P 500 Index as the standard for measuring market declines; (2)
whether halts that occur shortly after the 9:30 a.m. market open cause
more harm than good; and (3) what additional testing of the MWCB
mechanism should be done.
    After considering data and anecdotal reports of market
participants' experiences during the March 2020 MWCB events, the
Taskforce did not recommend immediate changes be made to the use of the
S&P 500 Index as the reference price against which market declines are
measured, or to the current MWCB mechanism which permits halts even
shortly after the 9:30 a.m. market open. The Taskforce recommended
creating a process for a backup reference price in the event that the
S&P 500 Index becomes unavailable, and enhancing functional MWCB
testing. The Taskforce also asked CME to consider modifying its rules
to enter into a limit-down state in the futures pre-market after a 7%
decline instead of 5%.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Division of Trading and
Markets requested that the equities exchanges and FINRA prepare a more
complete study of the design and operation of the MWCB mechanism and
the LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020.
Based on the results of that study, the Exchange expects to work with
the Commission, FINRA, the other exchanges, and market participants to
determine if any additional changes to the MWCB mechanism should be
made, including consideration of rules and procedures for the periodic
testing of the MWCB mechanism with industry participants.
    In addition to the work of the Taskforce, the equities exchanges
also moved forward in 2019 and 2020 with a plan to normalize their Day
2 opening procedures after a Level 3 MWCB halt, such that all exchanges
would reopen on Day 2 with a standard opening process. The Exchange and
its Affiliate SROs \10\ filed rule changes to that effect in March
2020, \11\ and successfully tested the implementation of those changes
on September 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``Affiliate SROs'' are the Exchange's affiliated
equities exchanges, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange,
Inc., and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88417 (March 18,
2020), 85 FR 16702 (March 24, 2020) (SR-CboeBZX-2020-025); 88416
(March 18, 2020), 85 FR 16699 (March 24, 2020) (SR-CboeBYX-2020-
009); 88420 (March 18, 2020), 85 FR 16696 (March 24, 2020) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2020-012); 88419 (March 18, 2020), 85 FR 16716 (March 24,
2020) (SR-CboeEDGA-2020-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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 market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 11.18 is
an important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability
and investor confidence during a period of significant stress when
securities markets experience extreme broad-based declines. Extending
the market-wide circuit breaker pilot for an additional year would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Exchange and the
other SROs study the design and operation of the MWCB mechanism and the
LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020. Based
on the results of that study, the Exchange expects to work with the
Commission, FINRA, the other exchanges, and market participants to
determine if any additional changes to the MWCB mechanism should be
made, including consideration of rules and procedures for the periodic
testing of the MWCB mechanism with industry participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning when and how to halt trading
in all stocks as a result of extraordinary market volatility. Based on
the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from the MWCB under Rule 11.18 should continue on a pilot
basis because the MWCB will promote fair and orderly markets, and
protect investors and the public interest.

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 because the proposal would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism
to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Exchange and the
other SROs study the design and operation of the MWCB mechanism and the
LULD Plan during the period of volatility in the Spring of 2020.
Further, the Exchange understands that FINRA and other national
securities exchanges will file proposals to extend their rules
regarding the market-wide circuit breaker pilot. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across market centers
without implicating any competitive issues.

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 on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\
thereunder. Because the 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) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Commission has waived this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. Extending the pilot for an additional
year will allow the uninterrupted operation of the existing pilot while
the Exchange, FINRA, and the other exchanges conduct a study of the
MWCB mechanism in consultation with market participants and determine
if any additional changes to the MWCB mechanism should be made,
including consideration of rules and procedures for the periodic
testing of the MWCB mechanism with industry participants. Therefore,
the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission hereby designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 change 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-CboeBYX-2020-028 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-CboeBYX-2020-028.
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 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 and on its internet website. 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-CboeBYX-2020-028 and
should be submitted on or before November 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22704 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52077-52079]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20697]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72915; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31 To Delete Functionality Permitting Primary Only
Orders and Primary Sweep Orders To Be Designated With Intermarket Sweep
Order Modifiers

August 26, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 13, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to
delete functionality permitting Primary Only Orders (``PO Order'') and
Primary Sweep Orders (``PSO'') to be designated with Intermarket Sweep
Order (``ISO'') modifiers. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 7.31(x) and (kk) to
eliminate the ability of Users to enter PO Orders and PSOs with ISO
modifiers. A PO Order is a market or limit order that is routed to the
primary market by the Exchange. Currently, Rule 7.31(x)(4) permits a PO
Order to be entered with an ISO Modifier and places the responsibility
of Regulation NMS compliance on the broker-dealer that designates the
PO Order with an ISO Modifier. A PSO is a PO Order that first sweeps
the Exchange book and then any unexecuted portion is routed to the
primary market. Similar to Rule 7.31(x)(4), Rule 7.31(kk)(2) permits a
PSO to be entered with an ISO Modifier and places the responsibility of
Regulation NMS compliance on the broker-dealer that designates the PSO
with an ISO Modifier.
    The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 7.31(x)(4) and 7.31(kk)(2) to
no longer permit PO Orders and PSOs to be entered with ISO Modifiers.
Instead, if a User were to enter an ISO instruction on a PO Order or
PSO, the Exchange will reject such order. To reflect this change, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.31(x) and 7.31(kk) to provide that
PO Orders and PSOs may not be designated as an ISO. The Exchange is not
proposing any other changes to the use of ISOs.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to no longer accept PO
Orders and PSOs entered with ISO modifiers. While the Exchange has
placed the responsibility of Regulation NMS compliance on the
originating broker-dealer, the Exchange believes that the proposal
would avoid the appearance of the Exchange's routing broker of
violating Regulation NMS requirements should the originating broker-
dealer not be appropriately marking orders as ISO, even though
responsibility rests with the originating broker-dealer. The proposed
change would more clearly delineate such Regulation NMS requirements
with a single party--the originating broker-dealer. Either the
originating broker-dealer will directly enter ISOs at the necessary
trading centers to comply with Regulation NMS or submit a routable
order to the Exchange and the Exchange will route the order as
necessary to ensure compliance with Regulation NMS.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the systems
functionality associated with the proposed rule change by Trader Update
to be published no later than 30 days following the effective date. The
implementation date will be no later than 30 days following the
issuance of the Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\5\ 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, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that rejecting PO Orders and PSOs with ISO
modifiers will protect investors and the public interest because the
proposal will limit the number of ISO orders routed to other market
centers for which, at the time of the route, the Exchange is unaware
whether the originating broker-dealer has complied with its Regulation
NMS obligations. The Exchange believes that the rule proposal might
reduce the potential in which an ISO is routed by the Exchange to an
away market without the originating broker-dealer complying with
Regulation NMS. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that
eliminating the ability to enter PO Orders and PSOs with ISO modifiers
will have a detrimental effect on the market because ETP Holders have
the option either to enter ISOs directly to the necessary trading
centers to comply with Regulation NMS or submit a routable order to the
Exchange and the Exchange will route the order as necessary to ensure
compliance with Regulation NMS.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
[sic] eliminating the ability to add an ISO modifier to PO Orders and
PSOs will not impose any burden on competition because ETP Holders have
the option either to enter ISOs directly to the necessary trading
centers to comply with Regulation NMS or submit a routable order to the
Exchange and the Exchange will route the order as necessary to ensure
compliance with Regulation NMS.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2014-87 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-NYSEArca-2014-87. 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 NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEArca-2014-87 and should be submitted on or before
September 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20697 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33281-33282]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13426]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0610; FRL-10025-15-OMS]

Information Collection Request; Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Clean Water Act 404 State-Assumed Programs
(Renewal); Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of May 27,
2021, requesting comment on a proposed Information Collection Request
renewal (EPA ICR Number 0220.14, OMB Control Number 2040-0168) being
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. That notice
contained errors which need to be corrected.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2021. EPA is
extending the comment period to provide the public with a full 30 days
to review and comment on the docket and this revised notice. Comments
already received in response to the original, May 27, 2021 will be
considered but may also be supplemented with additional submissions if
necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Hurld, Oceans, Wetlands and
Communities Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW (4504T), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
202-564-5700; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 27, 2021 in notice FR Doc. 2021-
11276, beginning on page 28596, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 25896, third column, in the ``For Further Information
Contact:'' section, the contact person listed was incorrect. Please
contact Kathy Hurld using the contact information in the ``For Further
Information Contact:'' section of this document.
    2. On page 28596, third column, and continuing on the first column
of page 28597, in the ``Supplementary Information:'' section, correct
the five full paragraphs of the ``Abstract'' section, to read as
follow:
    ``Abstract: Section 404(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA/Clean Water Act (CWA)), authorizes states and tribes to
assume the section 404 permit program for discharges of dredged or fill
material into certain waters of the United States. This ICR covers the
collection of information that EPA needs to perform its program
approval and oversight responsibilities and that the state or tribe
needs to implement its program.
    Request to assume CWA section 404 permit program. States and tribes
must demonstrate that they meet the statutory and regulatory
requirements at 40 CFR part 233 for an approvable program. Specified
information and documents must be submitted by the state or tribe to
EPA to request assumption and must be sufficient to enable EPA to
conduct an analysis of the state or tribal program. The information
contained in the assumption request submission is provided to the other
involved federal agencies and to the general public for review and
comment.
    Permit application information. States and tribes with assumed
programs must be able to issue permits that assure compliance with all
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the CWA
section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Sufficient information must be provided
in the application so that states or tribes and federal agencies
reviewing the permit are able to evaluate, avoid, minimize, and
compensate for any anticipated impacts resulting from the proposed
project. EPA's assumption regulations at 40 CFR 233.30 establish
required and recommended elements that should be included in the state
or tribe's permit application, so that sufficient information is
available to assess anticipated impacts. These minimum information
requirements generally reflect the information that must be submitted
when applying for a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. (CWA section 404(h); CWA section 404(j); 40 CFR 230.10,
233.20, 233.21, 233.34, and 233.50; 33 CFR 325)).
    Annual report and program information. EPA has an oversight role
for assumed section 404 permit programs to ensure that state or tribal
programs comply with applicable

requirements. States and tribes must evaluate their programs annually
and submit the results in a report to EPA. EPA's assumption regulations
at 40 CFR 233.52 establish minimum requirements for the annual report.
    The information included in the state or tribe's assumption request
and the information included in a permit application is made available
for public review and comment. The information included in the annual
report to EPA is made available to the public. EPA does not make any
assurances of confidentiality for this information.''
    3. On page 28597, in the first and second columns, the paragraphs
with the italicized headings: ``Estimated number of respondents:'', ''
Total estimated burden:'', ``Total estimated cost:'', and ``Changes in
estimates:'' are corrected to read as follows:
    ``Estimated number of respondents: Two states to request program
assumption; 11,278 permit applicants; and five state annual reports.''
    ``Total estimated burden: 218,880 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).''
    ``Total estimated cost: Costs to states for assumed section 404
permit programs will vary widely by state and permit; however, the
total estimated costs for five programs is $7,183,445 and costs to
permittees in state-assumed programs is $1,900,236. There are $0
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is an increase of 89,920 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. There are several reasons for this increase: (1) On
December 17, 2020, Florida assumed the program; (2) a small increase in
the estimate of hours required to assume a program based on information
provided by Michigan and New Jersey, the two states that were approved
by EPA to administer a state dredge and fill program at the time of the
60 day notice; (3) EPA's new interpretation regarding its obligation to
conduct consultation under the Endangered Species Act and the National
Historic Properties Act when considering requests from States and
Tribes to assume the program; (4) the burden to state permittees has
been included; and (5) a small increase in the estimated hours for
permit review by Michigan and New Jersey, for compiling the annual
report. EPA has reduced its estimate for the number of permits per
state based on data provided by Michigan and New Jersey.''

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-13426 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36633-36635]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA--2012-0084]

National Automotive Sampling System

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of the Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA has reached the next phase of the design for the
modernization of National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) or Data
Modernization (DataMod). NHTSA announces that it will hold a public
listening session to solicit information and comments on: (a) Adding,
deleting or changing the current NASS data elements for DataMod, and;
(b) recommendations for changing or improving the NASS data collection
methodology. NHTSA will give a brief status of the project and then
open the floor to the public. The listening session will also be
accessible through the Internet.

DATES: The listening session will be held on July 18, 2013, from 1:00-
5:00 p.m., EDT. If all participants have had an opportunity to comment,
the session may conclude earlier.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the U. S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
in the Oklahoma City Conference Room. In addition to attending the
session in person, the Agency offers several ways to provide comments
as enumerated below.
     Internet Access Via the Web: NHTSA will post specific
information on how to participate via the Internet on the NHTSA Web
site at www.nhtsa.gov one week before the listening session.
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System Docket ID NHTSA-2012-0084 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Send comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by
hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to mention
the agency and the docket number of this document within your
correspondence. Please note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comments, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
listening session or access via the Internet, please contact Delia
Lopez, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA (telephone:
202-366-5365 or email: delia.lopez@dot.gov). Registration is available
at www.nhtsa.gov.
    If you need sign language assistance to participate in this
listening session, contact Ms. Lopez by July 3, 2013, to allow us to
arrange for such services. NHTSA cannot guarantee that interpreter
services requested on short notice will be provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The listening session will allow interested
persons to present comments and propose future data elements to be
collected by NASS excluding comments already submitted. All comments
and discussions will be transcribed and placed in docket NHTSA-2012-
0084 for NHTSA's consideration.

I. Background

    NHTSA is undertaking a modernization effort to upgrade the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) by improving the information
technology (IT) infrastructure, updating and prioritizing the data
collected, reselecting the sample sites and sample sizes, re-examining
the electronic formats in which the crash data files are made available
to the public, and improving data collection methods and quality
control procedures, among other activities. This project is called the
Data Modernization (DataMod) Project.
    NASS collects crash data on a nationally representative sample of
police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes and related injuries.
NASS data are used by Federal, State, and local government agencies, as
well as by industry and academia in the U.S. and around the world. The
data enable stakeholders to make informed regulatory, program, and
policy decisions regarding vehicle design and traffic safety. The NASS
system currently has two components: the General Estimates System (GES)
and the Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). While the GES captures
information on all types of traffic crashes, the CDS focuses on more
severe crashes involving passenger vehicles to better document the
consequences to vehicles and occupants in crashes--i.e.,
crashworthiness.
    NASS was originally designed in the 1970's, and has not received
significant revision since that time with regard to the type of data
collected and the sites for data collection. Over the last three
decades NHTSA understands that the scope of traffic safety studies has
expanded and the data needs of the transportation community have
increased and significantly changed. In addition, the distribution of
the U.S. population has shifted over the past 23 years, and there is a
growing need for the collection of information that addresses issues of
crash avoidance. Recognizing the importance of this data, NHTSA is
pursuing the DataMod Project to enhance the quality of the data
collected and the overall effectiveness of the NASS.
    This modernization effort includes the following major objectives:
     Propose data elements for the crash investigation portion
of NASS that are responsive to the current and future needs of both
internal and external data users;
     Develop a detailed, executable sample design and data
collection protocol blueprint that meets data needs in an effective and
efficient manner while still maintaining national representativeness;
     Modernize the information technology (IT) infrastructure;
     Re-examine the electronic formats in which the crash data
files are made available to the public; and
     Examine using new data collection methods and quality
control procedures to improve data quality and timeliness.

II. Comments From Stakeholders

    On June 21, 2012, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice (77 FR
37471-72) soliciting comments from NASS users on the current data
elements, proposed new data elements, suggestions on the research
design and data collection protocol for the modernized study, and any
other ideas NHTSA should consider to improve crash data.
    Twenty-five organizations and individuals submitted comments in
response to the Federal Register Notice. Most of the comments came from
research organizations and automobile manufacturers and their
associations. The 25 organizations and individuals provided 313
specific comments. As expected, most of the specific comments were
related to NASS CDS (292 or 93%). The remaining comments were related
to GES, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), or multiple
NHTSA crash data bases.
    Specific comments fell into common general topic areas. The most
common topic areas were scene, followed by sample design, data
elements, and vehicle reconstruction. Once the comments were grouped
into topic areas, it was clear that many of the comments overlapped or
were the same. At least two or more associations and individuals
requested the same information in the new system. For example, although
we received 41 specific comments on scene information, many of the
comments were similar. In fact, if you group by unique comments there
are only 18 unique comments related to scene. Seven commenters wanted
latitude and longitude data added to both GES and CDS in the new
system.
    Anyone who responded previously to the previous Federal Register
Notice requesting comments does not need to resubmit their comments. To
see the comments that were submitted, please go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for docket number, NHTSA-2012-0084.

III. Meeting Participation and Information NHTSA Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. NHTSA will open the
meeting by providing a brief presentation on the current status. The
status update will include an overall description of the Data Mod
Project and project timing, provide information on the new sample
design and describe the information

technology implementation. NHTSA has reached the next phase of the
design for the modernization of NASS. In this phase we need to finalize
the new data elements. Current NASS data elements, coding instructions,
and descriptive materials can be reviewed on NHTSA's Web site at:
http://nhtsa.gov/NASS.
    Speakers' remarks will be limited to 10 minutes each. Pre-
registration is required for in-person and webinar participation.
Register at www.nhtsa.gov by July 11, 2013. For questions contact Delia
Lopez at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. In-person participants
need to bring photo identification and should plan to arrive 45 minutes
before the session starts to allow time to clear building security. The
public may submit material to the NHTSA staff at the session for
inclusion in the public docket, NHTSA-2012-0084.

IV. Alternative Access Via the Internet During the Listening Session on
July 18, 2013

    NHTSA will also provide access via the Internet for participants.
The telephone access number and other information on how to participate
via the Internet will be posted on the NHTSA Web site at www.nhsta.gov
one week before the listening session. Internet participants must
register at www.nhtsa.gov by July 11, 2013.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center For Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2013-14363 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75419-75421]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0435]

Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically Placed Tubal Implants
Intended for Sterilization; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the guidance entitled ``Labeling for Permanent
Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization.''
This guidance addresses the inclusion of a boxed warning and patient
decision checklist in the product labeling for permanent
hysteroscopically placed tubal implants intended for female
sterilization, and the content and format of those materials. FDA
believes that the labeling described in this guidance will help to
ensure that a woman receives and understands information regarding the
benefits and risks of this type of device prior to undergoing
implantation. FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance
and revised the guidance as appropriate.
    The guidance identifies the content and format of certain labeling
components for permanent, hysteroscopically placed tubal implants that
are intended for sterilization. The guidance applies to all devices of
this type, regardless of the insert material composition, location of
intended implantation, or exact method of delivery.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-0435 for ``Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically-Placed
Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization, Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff.'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy, including
the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments.
The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information
redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted
on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of
Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact
information to be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants
Intended for Sterilization, Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff'' to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance
and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm.
5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Roberts, Division of
Reproductive, Gastro-Renal and Urological Devices, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G218, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-6400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Female sterilization is a commonly performed surgical procedure
that permanently prevents a woman from becoming pregnant by occluding
her fallopian tubes. Traditionally, such surgery has been performed by
surgical bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) through a laparotomy, a mini-
laparotomy, a transvaginal approach or at the time of cesarean
delivery, and, more recently, laparoscopy. During surgical BTL, the
fallopian tubes are cut or physically occluded by using various
procedures or medical instruments, such as electrosurgical coagulation
or implantable clips or rings. On November 4, 2002, FDA approved the
Essure System for Permanent Birth Control, the first permanent
hysteroscopically placed tubal implant, as an alternative, non-
incisional method of providing female sterilization. As the number of
hysteroscopic sterilizations with such devices has increased,
additional information, including reports of adverse events, has
accumulated. Some of these events have resulted in surgery and/or
removal of the implants.
    In the Federal Register on July 22, 2015 (80 FR 43440), FDA
announced a meeting of a public advisory committee to seek expert
scientific and clinical opinion on the risks and benefits of the Essure
System for Permanent Birth Control. On September 24, 2015, FDA convened
its Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee to discuss available data regarding benefits, risks,
and potential mitigation strategies to prevent or reduce the frequency/
severity of the adverse events reported in association with this device
(Ref. 1).
    A draft guidance regarding the labeling for permanent
hysteroscopically placed tubal implants intended for sterilization was
announced in the Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11577) and
made available for public comment. The comment period closed on May 3,
2016. FDA reviewed and considered all public comments received and
revised the guidance as appropriate, including revisions to the content
and format of a boxed warning and patient decision checklist. FDA
intends to require such labeling as part of a premarket approval
application (PMA) for hysteroscopically placed tubal implants intended
for sterilization (or a PMA supplement for an already marketed device).

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Labeling for Permanent Hysteroscopically-
Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons
unable to download an electronic copy of ``Labeling for Permanent
Hysteroscopically-Placed Tubal Implants Intended for Sterilization''
may send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500051
to identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

V. References

    The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. Meeting Materials of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel
(2015), available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/ucm463457.htm.

    Dated: October 26, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26243 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44229-44231]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72668; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-048]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Give Up of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder

July 24, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On May 23, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the ``give up''
process, the process by which a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') ``gives
up'' or selects and indicates the Clearing Trading Permit Holder
(``CTPH'') responsible for the clearance of an Exchange transaction.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 11, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72325 (June 5,
2014), 79 FR 33614 (June 11, 2014) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Background

    CBOE proposes to amend Rules 6.21 and 6.50 that govern the give up
of a CTPH by a TPH on Exchange transactions. In order to enter
transactions on the Exchange, a TPH must either be a CTPH or have a
CTPH agree to accept financial responsibility for the TPH's
transactions. Current CBOE Rule 6.21 provides that for each transaction
in which a TPH participates, the TPH must give up the name of the CTPH
(the ``give up'') through which the transaction will be cleared. CBOE
Rule 6.50 further provides that every CTPH will be responsible for the
clearance of Exchange transactions of each TPH that gives up the CTPH's
name pursuant to a letter of authorization, letter of guarantee, or
other authorization given by the CTPH to the executing TPH.\4\ CBOE
proposes to amend Rules 6.21 and 6.50 to address the give up process,
including procedures governing that process, in greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designated Give Ups and Guarantors

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 6.21 to provide that a TPH that is not
a market maker may only give up (i) a CTPH that has previously been
identified and processed by the Exchange as a ``designated give up''
for that TPH, or (ii) a guarantor of the TPH. The Exchange proposes to
introduce and define the term ``designated give up'' as a CTPH that a
TPH (other than a market maker) identifies in advance to the Exchange,
in writing, as a CTPH that the TPH would like the ability to give up on
its trades.\5\ A TPH will be required to identify to CBOE any
designated give ups in advance of giving up any CTPH that is not a
guarantor for the TPH. The Exchange has proposed a standardized form
(``Notification Form'') that a TPH will be required to submit to the
Exchange's Registration Services Department in order to identify its
designated give ups. If a TPH no longer wants the ability to give up a
particular designated give up, the TPH must notify the Exchange in
writing by submitting a Notification Form. CBOE proposes to allow a TPH
to submit a Notification Form identifying any CTPH as a designated give
up and does not propose any minimum or maximum number of designated
give ups that a TPH may identify.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed Rule 6.21(b)(i).
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will notify a CTPH, in writing and as soon as
practicable, of each TPH that has identified the CTPH as one of its
designated give ups. In its proposal, CBOE noted that it will disregard
any instructions from a CTPH not to permit a particular TPH to
designate the CTPH as a designated give up and will not perform any
subjective evaluation of a TPH's list of proposed designated give
ups.\7\ Rather, the Exchange will only ensure that the CTPHs that a TPH
identifies on the Notification Form as designated give ups are current
CBOE CTPHs and will review the Notification Form for completeness and
accuracy.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. The ability of a CTPH to reject a trade on which it
was indicated as the designated give up is discussed below.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposes to define the term ``guarantor'' for purposes of
proposed Rule 6.21 as a CTPH that has issued a letter of guarantee or a
letter of authorization for the executing TPH under the rules of the
Exchange that are in effect at the time of the execution of the
trade.\9\ An executing TPH may give up its guarantor without
identifying the guarantor as a designated give up (i.e., the guarantor
accepts clearing responsibility for all trades of its guarantee TPH
pursuant to its role as the default CTPH for that TPH, unless the TPH
indicates an alternate CTPH to be the designed give up on a particular
trade), and the TPH therefore would not need to submit a Notification
Form to the Exchange before indicating its guarantor as a designated
give up. Because CBOE Rule 8.5 requires that a letter of guarantee be
issued and filed with the Exchange by each CTPH through which a market
maker desires to clear transactions, the Exchange proposes that a TPH
that is a market

maker only be enabled to give up a guarantor of the market maker.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Rule 6.21(b)(ii).
    \10\ See Rule 8.5; see also Notice, supra note 3, at 33614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, CBOE states that it will configure its trading
systems to only accept orders that identify a designated give up or a
guarantor for the TPH.\11\ The Exchange further states that this
configuration is intended to prevent a TPH from erroneously giving up
the name of a CTPH that it had no intention of using as a designated
give up.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33614-15. Conversely, CBOE
states in its proposal that its systems will reject any order that
designates a give up that is not at the time a designated give up or
is otherwise the guarantor for the TPH. See id.
    \12\ See id. The Exchange states that it will notify a TPH in
writing when one of its designated give ups becomes effective in the
Exchange's trading systems following the submission by the TPH of
the required Notification Form. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Non-Acceptance of a Trade

    CBOE proposes to allow a designated give up or a guarantor, in
certain circumstances, to not accept a trade for which its name was
given up. A designated give up may determine not to accept a trade if
it believes in good faith that it has a valid reason not to accept the
trade, in which case it may reject the trade by following the
procedures set forth in proposed Rule 6.21, which are described
below.\13\ Where a designated give up determines not to accept a trade
for which its name was given up, the executing TPH's guarantor or
another CTPH that has agreed to be the give up on the trade will become
the give up. With respect to guarantors, CBOE proposes to permit a
guarantor to not accept a non-market maker trade for which its name was
given up only if another CTPH agrees to be the give up on the trade and
has notified the Exchange and executing TPH in writing of its intent to
accept the trade. Only a designated give up or guarantor whose name was
initially given up on a trade may determine not to accept a trade.
Therefore, a CTPH or guarantor that becomes the give up on a rejected
trade may not subsequently reject the trade themselves.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to CBOE, examples of valid reasons include that
the designated give up does not have a customer for the particular
trade or that another CTPH has agreed to be the give up on the trade
and has notified the Exchange and executing TPH of its intent to
accept the trade. See Notice, supra note 3, at 33615.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Procedures to Reject on Trade Date

    A designated give up that rejects a trade on the trade date must
notify, in writing, the executing TPH or its designated agent as soon
as possible and attempt to resolve the disputed give up.\15\ If no
resolution is reached and the designated give up still intends to
reject the trade, then the designated give up will be required to
complete and submit to the Exchange a standardized form (``Give Up
Change Form'') in which it is required to identify the new give up. As
long as the Exchange is able to process the form before the trade input
cutoff time established by the Clearing Corporation (or fifteen minutes
thereafter if the Exchange receives and is able to process a request to
extend its time of final trade submission to the Clearing Corporation)
(``Trade Date Cutoff Time''), the Exchange will allow the designated
give up to change the give up on the trade to either (i) another CTPH
that has agreed to accept the trade, or (ii) the executing TPH's
guarantor.\16\ If another CTPH has agreed to step in as the give up,
the new CTPH must complete and submit to the Exchange another
standardized form (``CBOE Give-Up Change Form For Accepting Clearing
Trading Permit Holders'') reflecting its intent to accept the trade. A
designated give up may change the give up on a trade to a guarantor for
the executing TPH so long as the designated give up has first notified
the guarantor in writing.\17\ As discussed above, where a designated
give up has rejected a trade, neither a CTPH that has agreed to become
the give up on a trade nor a guarantor that becomes the give up may
subsequently reject the trade. This prohibition prevents a trade from
being repeatedly reassigned from one CTPH to another.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 6.21(f)(i).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33615.
    \17\ See proposed Rule 6.21(f)(ii). In such case, the guarantor
does not need to notify the Exchange of its intent to accept the
trade or submit any form to the Exchange. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 33615.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A guarantor may reject a non-market maker trade for which its name
was initially given up only if another CTPH agrees to be the give up
and the new CTPH has first notified in writing both the Exchange and
the executing TPH of its willingness to accept the trade.\19\ If a
guarantor rejects a trade on the trade date, it also is required to
follow the same procedures that a designated give up uses to change the
give up, which includes submitting the Give Up Change Form to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 6.21(e)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designated give up or guarantor that changes the give up must
notify the Exchange, the parties to the trade, and the new CTPH in
writing immediately after making the change.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Procedures to Reject on T+1

    Recognizing that some firms may take longer to reconcile their
trades, CBOE also has proposed to establish procedures for a designated
give up or guarantor of a TPH that is not a market maker to reject a
trade and change the give up by entering trade records into the
Exchange's trading system on the day after the trade date (``T+1'') in
order to effect a transfer of the trade to the new give up.\21\ The
ability of a designated give up or guarantor to make such changes ends
at 12:00 p.m. CST (``T+1 Cutoff Time'').\22\ This process is not
applicable to, and no changes to the give up may be made for,
transactions in expiring options series that take place on the last
trading day prior to its expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The procedures for rejecting a trade and change the give up
on T+1 are substantially similar to the procedures for making such
changes on the trade date. See Notice, supra note 3, at 33615-16;
see also proposed Rule 6.21(f)(ii-iii).
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Give Up Changes

    CBOE's proposal also sets forth three situations in which a give up
may be changed without Exchange involvement (other than after-the-fact
notice to the Exchange).\23\ First, if the executing TPH has the
ability through an Exchange system to do so, the TPH may change the
give up on the trade to another designated give up or to the TPH's
guarantor if done before the Trade Date Cutoff Time. In addition, if a
designated give up has the ability through an Exchange system to do so,
it may change the give up on a trade to another CTPH affiliated with
the designated give up or to a CTPH that is a back office agent for the
designated give up if done before the Trade Cutoff Time. Finally, if
both a designated give up (or guarantor) and an accepting CTPH have the
ability through an Exchange system to do so, they may each enter trade
records into the Exchange's systems on T+1 (if done before the T+1
Cutoff Time) that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-expired
options series from that designated give up (or guarantor) to that new
accepting CTPH. A designated give up (or guarantor) must notify the
Exchange and all parties to the trade, in writing, of any such change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 6.21(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Financial Responsibility for Trades

    In its proposal, CBOE notes that a CTPH is financially responsible
for all trades for which it is the give up as of the applicable cutoff
time (Trade Date Cutoff Time or T+1 Cutoff Time). However, CBOE notes
in its proposal that its proposed rule changes do not

preclude a different party from being responsible for the trade
pursuant to the rules of the Clearing Corporation, any agreement
between the applicable parties, or other applicable rules, regulations,
arbitration, court proceedings, or otherwise.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CBOE proposes to eliminate language in Rule 6.50 that
addresses financial responsibility of transactions clearing through
CTPHs because financial responsibility is now addressed in new
paragraph (h) to Rule 6.21.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposal, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange,\26\ and, in particular, the requirements
of Section 6 of the Act.\27\ Specifically, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\28\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, 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, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission believes that by providing more
detailed requirements relating to the give up process, the proposal is
designed to bring greater operational certainty and efficiency to that
process. For example, requiring TPHs and CTPHs to use standardized
forms to designate give ups, reject a trade and change the give up on a
trade, and accept a trade as a new give up should enhance CBOE's
ability to efficiently monitor and enforce compliance with its rules
relating to the give up process. Use of standardized forms also may
make it easier for TPHs and CTPHs to comply with the proposed rules,
and should benefit all members by providing a written confirmation to
evidence any changes in clearing responsibility for a particular trade.
In addition, the process specified in the proposed rule should provide
greater transparency and certainty to members about the expectations
and requirements attendant to the give up process, and should help
facilitate a common process among exchange members in the event that a
change to a designated give up becomes necessary.
    The Commission believes that the proposal addresses the role of
different parties involved in the give up process in a balanced manner
and is designed to provide a fair and reasonable methodology for the
give up process. For example, the proposed rule change allows executing
TPHs to designate any current CBOE CTPH as a designated give up while
also obligating the Exchange to notify CTPHs of each TPH that has
identified the CTPH as a designated give up. Moreover, the proposal
creates procedures for a CTPH to reject a trade where the CTPH has a
good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept the trade.
Although a CTPH with a valid reason may reject a trade, the proposal
ensures that there is finality to this process by prohibiting a CTPH
that agrees to become the give up on a trade (or a guarantor that is
assigned the trade) from subsequently rejecting the trade. In this
manner, the proposed rule change is designed to ensure that there will
always be a CPTH that will be financially responsible for a trade,
which should promote greater operational certainty and facilitate
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in clearing
transactions.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is
consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(5) thereof, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
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 in general,
protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2014-048), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17881 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P