[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51813-51814]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16643]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0033; FRL-11107-01-OW]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Information
Collection Request; Comment Request; Modification of Secondary
Treatment Requirements for Discharges Into Marine Waters (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR Number. 0138.12, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Control Number. 2040-0088) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comment
on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the Information Collection
Request (ICR), which is currently approved through April 30, 2024. This
notice allows for 60 days for public comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
2003-0033, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Fox-Norse, Oceans, Wetlands
and Communities Division, Office of Water, (4504T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2024. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting
documents that explain in detail the information that EPA will be
collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at EPA Docket
Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Regulations implementing section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) are found at 40 CFR part 125, subpart G. The CWA
section 301(h) program involves collecting information from two
sources: (1) the municipal wastewater treatment facility, commonly
called a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and (2) the state in
which the POTW is located. A POTW with or applying for renewal of
modified secondary treatment limits submits information to EPA, whether
monitoring and toxic control program information, or its application
for renewal. The state provides information on its determination
whether the discharge under the proposed conditions of the 301(h)
modification ensures the protection of water quality, biological
habitats, and beneficial uses of receiving waters and whether the
discharge will result in additional treatment, pollution control, or
any other requirement for any other point or nonpoint sources. The
state also provides information to certify that the discharge will meet
all applicable state laws and that the state accepts all permit
conditions.
    There are four situations where information will be required under
the CWA section 301(h) program:
    (1) A POTW reapplying for a CWA section 301(h) modification. As the
permits with section 301(h) modifications reach their expiration dates,
EPA must have updated information on the discharge to determine whether
the CWA section 301(h) criteria are still being met and whether the CWA
section 301(h) modification should be reissued. Under 40 CFR 125.59(f),
each CWA section 301(h) permittee is required to submit an application
for a new section 301(h) modified permit within 180 days of the
existing permit's expiration date; 40 CFR 125.59(c) lists the
information required for a modified permit. The information that EPA
needs to determine whether the POTW's reapplication meets the CWA
section 301(h) criteria is outlined in the questionnaire attached to 40
CFR part 125, subpart G.
    (2) Monitoring and toxic control program information: Once a permit
modification has been granted, EPA must continue to assess whether the
discharge is meeting CWA section 301(h) criteria, and whether the
receiving water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial uses of
the receiving waters are protected. To do this, EPA needs monitoring
information furnished by the permittee. According to 40 CFR 125.68(d),
any permit issued with a section 301(h) modification must contain the
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 125.63(b), (c), and (d) for
biomonitoring, water quality criteria and standards monitoring, and
effluent monitoring, respectively. In addition, 40 CFR 125.68(d)
requires reporting at the frequency specified in the monitoring
program. In addition to monitoring information, EPA needs information
on the toxics control program required by 40 CFR 125.66 to ensure that
the permittee is effectively minimizing industrial and nonindustrial
toxic pollutant and pesticide discharges into the treatment works.
    (3) Application revision information: 40 CFR 125.59(d) allows a
POTW to revise its application one time only,

following a tentative decision by EPA to deny the section 301(h)
modification request. In its application revision, the POTW usually
corrects deficiencies and changes proposed treatment levels as well as
outfall and diffuser locations. The application revision is a voluntary
submission for the applicant, and a letter of intent to revise the
application must be submitted within 45 days of EPA's tentative
decision (40 CFR 125.59(f)). EPA needs this information to evaluate
revised applications to determine whether the modified discharge will
ensure protection of water quality, biological habitats, and beneficial
uses of receiving waters.
    (4) State determination and state certification information: For
revised or renewal applications for CWA section 301(h) modifications,
EPA needs a state determination. The state determines whether all state
laws (including water quality standards) are satisfied. This
determination helps ensure that water quality, biological habitats, and
beneficial uses of receiving waters are protected. Additionally, the
state must determine if the applicant's discharge will result in
additional treatment, pollution control, or any other requirement for
any other point or nonpoint sources. This process allows the state's
views to be taken into account when EPA reviews the CWA section 301(h)
application and develops permit conditions. For revised and renewed CWA
section 301(h) modification applications, EPA also needs the CWA
section 401(a)(1) certification information to ensure that any Federal
license or permit meets all state water quality laws it issues with a
CWA section 301(h) modification, and the state accepts all the permit
conditions. This information is how the state can exercise its
authority to concur with or deny a CWA section 301(h) decision made by
an EPA regional office.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are those municipalities that currently have CWA section
301(h) modifications from secondary treatment or have applied for a
renewal of a CWA section 301(h) modification, and the states within
which these municipalities are located.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain
or retain a benefit.
    Estimated number of respondents: 31 (total).
    Frequency of response: From once every five years, to varies case-
by-case, depending on the category of information.
    Total estimated burden: 44,985 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1.3 million (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: A decrease of hours in the total
estimated respondent burden is expected compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. EPA expects the numbers will decrease due to changes
in respondent universe, use of technology, etc.

Brian Frazer,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
[FR Doc. 2023-16643 Filed 8-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56263-56265]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22835]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87310; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Move Certain Rules in Chapter XXI of the Currently Effective
Rulebook to Proposed Section F of Chapter 4 of the Shell Structure for
the Exchange's Rulebook That Will Become Effective Upon the Migration
of the Exchange's Trading Platform

October 15, 2019.
    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 3, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to move certain Rules in Chapter XXI of the currently effective
Rulebook (``current Rulebook''), which governs Government securities
options, to proposed Section F of Chapter 4 of the shell structure for
the Exchange's Rulebook that will become effective upon the migration
of the Exchange's trading platform to the same system used by the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges (as defined below) (``shell Rulebook''). 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://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align
certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences,
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to the
same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange
expects to complete on October 7, 2019. In connection with this
technology migration, the Exchange has a shell Rulebook that resides
alongside its current Rulebook, which shell Rulebook will contain the
Rules that will be in place upon completion of the Cboe Options
technology migration.
    The Exchange proposes to relocate certain rules in Chapter XXI,
which govern Government securities options, to proposed Section F of
Chapter 4 in the shell Rulebook. The Exchange notes that in addition to
relocating certain rules regarding Government securities options to
proposed Section F of Chapter 4 in the shell Rulebook, the proposed
rule change deletes the rules from the current Rulebook. The proposed
rule change relocates the rules as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed rule                         Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory paragraph under Section F   Introduction.
 heading.
4.50 Definitions.......................  21.1 Definitions.
4.51 Designation of Government Security  21.6 Designation of Government
 Options (Treasury Bonds and Notes).      Security Options (Treasury
                                          Bonds and Notes).
4.52 Approval of Underlying Treasury     21.7 Approval of Underlying
 Securities for Specific Coupon Options   Treasury Securities for
 (Treasury Bonds and Notes).              Specific Coupon Options
                                          (Treasury Bonds and Notes).
4.53 Terms of Treasury Security Options  21.8 Terms of Treasury Security
 (Treasury Bonds and Notes).              Options (Treasury Bonds and
                                          Notes).
4.54 Series of Treasury Security         21.9 Series of Treasury
 Options Open for Trading (Treasury       Security Options Open for
 Bonds and Notes).                        Trading (Treasury Bonds and
                                          Notes).
4.55 Special Rules for Treasury Bill     21.31 Special Rules for
 Options.                                 Treasury Bill Options.

4.56 Wire Connections..................  21.2 Wire Connections.
4.57 Trading Rotations.................  21.11 Trading Rotations.
4.58 Priority of Bids and Offers.......  21.14 Priority of Bids and
                                          Offers.
4.59 Limit Order Book for Government     21.18 Limit Order Book for
 Securities Options.                      Government Securities Options.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not
amend the relocated rules other than to update their rule numbers,
conform paragraph structure \3\ and number/lettering format to that of
the shell Rulebook, and make cross-reference changes to shell rules.
The Exchange notes that it removes the rule text under current Rule
21.2 (proposed Rule 4.56) that states that (current) Rule 21.2 replaces
Rule 4.3 because Rule 4.3 no longer exists in the currently effect
Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the paragraph structure for
definitions listed under rules in the shell Rulebook is in
alphabetized format. Therefore, the same structure is used under
proposed Rule 4.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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 a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to
the rules. The proposed rule change is merely intended to relocate the
Exchange's rules to the shell Rulebook and update their numbers,
paragraph structure, including number and lettering format, and cross-
references to conform to the shell Rulebook as a whole in anticipation
of the technology migration on October 7, 2019. As such, the proposed
rule change 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, by improving the way the Exchange's
Rulebook is organized, making it easier to read, and, particularly,
helping market participants better understand the rules of the
Exchange, which will also result in less burdensome and more efficient
regulatory compliance.

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. The proposed rule change is not
intended as a competitive change, but rather, seeks to make non-
substantive rule changes in relocating the rules and updating cross-
references to shell rules in anticipation of the October 7, 2019
technology migration. The Exchange also does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any undue burden on competition
because the relocated rule text is exactly the same as the Exchange's
current rules, all of which have all been previously filed with the
Commission.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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 \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
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, 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 \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived that requirement in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ 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 proposed
rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange notes that
the proposed rule change is merely relocating certain rules to its
shell rulebook--which includes corresponding updates to rule numbers,
paragraph structure, and internal references--in order to conform these
rules to the shell rulebook upon the technology October 7, 2019
migration explained above. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will make its rules easier to read and understand for all
investors. The Exchange also asserts that the relocation of the rules
explained above will not impose any significant burden on competition
because the substance of the rules remains unchanged. The Commission
agrees that allowing this proposed rule change to become operative upon
filing in order to facilitate the Exchange's technology migration--
without changing the substance of these Exchange Rules--is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. For this
reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day

operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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-CBOE-2019-086 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-CBOE-2019-086. 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 offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-086, and should be submitted
on or before November 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22835 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72731-72737]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28848]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70948; File No. SR-CHX-2013-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Adopt a Match Trade Prevention Modifier for Limit and Market Orders
Submitted to the Exchange

November 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 20, 2013, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has filed
this proposal pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \3\ which is
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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 1 (Definitions) and Rule 2
(Order Types, Modifiers, and Related Terms) to adopt a Match Trade
Prevention order execution modifier for limit and market orders
submitted to the CHX Matching System (``Matching System''). The text of
this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.chx.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, on the
Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange does not currently offer Match Trade Prevention
(``MTP'') functionality. The Exchange now proposes to adopt Article 1,
Rule 2(b)(3)(F) to offer MTP functionality for limit \4\ and market \5\
orders that are submitted to the Matching System.\6\ In sum, through
the use of a proposed MTP order execution modifier, Participants may
prevent the execution of marketable contra-side orders that originated
from the same group of one or more trading accounts (i.e., MTP Trading
Group), but will not prevent an execution if such contra-side orders
originated from different subgroups within the same MTP Trading Group.
Thus, given that the proposed MTP functionality is based on the
interaction between MTP Trading Groups, the Exchange further proposes
to adopt Article 1, Rule 1(ll) to define ``Trading Account'' and Rule
1(mm) to define ``MTP Trading Group.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Article 1, Rule 2(a)(1) defines ``limit order,'' in
pertinent part, as ``an order to buy or sell a specific amount of a
security at a specified price or better if obtainable once the order
has been submitted to the market.''
    \5\ Article 1, Rule 2(a)(3) defines ``market order,'' in
pertinent part, as ``an order to buy or sell a specific amount of a
security at the best price available once the order is presented in
the market.''
    \6\ The proposed MTP functionality will only be applicable to
single-sided orders. The purpose of MTP is obviated if both sides of
an order are already identified, as in the case of a cross order.
Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) defines ``cross order,'' in pertinent part,
as ``an order to buy and sell the same security at a specific price
better than the best bid and offer displayed in the Matching System
and which would not constitute a trade-through under Regulation NMS
(including all applicable exceptions and exemptions).'' As such, MTP
modifiers may only be applied to limit and market orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Accounts and MTP Trading Groups
    Before discussing the details of the operation of the proposed MTP
functionality, it is important to first outline the interplay between
Trading Accounts and MTP Trading Groups. Currently, an order submitted
to the Matching System originates from a Trading Account, which is
identified by a unique account symbol, under a Trading Permit.\7\ A
Participant may hold

no more than one Trading Permit.\8\ In practice, but not currently
stated in CHX rules, a Participant Trading Permit holder may maintain
one or more trading accounts under its Trading Permit. Thus, given that
the proposed MTP functionality assumes that all orders sent to the
Matching System originate from MTP Trading Groups, it is necessary to
define the terms ``Trading Account'' \9\ and ``MTP Trading Group.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CHX Article 1, Rule 1(aa) defines ``Trading Permit'' as ``a
permit issued by the Exchange, granting the holder a revocable
license to execute approved securities transactions through the
Exchange's Trading Facilities, or to have those transactions
executed on its behalf.'' In turn, CHX Article 1, Rule 1(z) defines
``Trading Facilities'' as ``all of the Exchange's facilities for the
trading of equity securities, including any and all electronic or
automated order routing, execution and reporting systems provided by
the Exchange.''
    \8\ CHX Article 3, Rule 2(e).
    \9\ ``Trading Accounts'' are not currently defined in the CHX
rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Article 1, Rule 1(ll) defines ``Trading Account'' as an
account under a Trading Permit,\10\ identified by a unique CHX account
symbol, from which orders are sent to the Exchange's Trading
Facilities. Also, a Trading Permit holder may establish more than one
Trading Account per Trading Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Article 1, Rule 1(mm) provides that an ``MTP Trading
Group'' means a group of one or more Trading Accounts that have been
aggregated at the request of all Participant Trading Permit holders
that control all Trading Accounts within the proposed group for the
purpose of enabling Match Trade Prevention functionality, pursuant to
proposed Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F)(i). It also states that a Trading
Account may not be assigned to more than one MTP Trading Group. Lastly,
it provides that any Exchange-approved changes to the composition of an
MTP Trading Group shall be effective no earlier than the trading day
following the request.
    Although the Exchange anticipates that the vast majority of MTP
Trading Groups will be composed of Trading Accounts from the same
Participant Trading Permit holder, the proposed definition of MTP
Trading Groups allows an MTP Trading Group to be comprised of Trading
Accounts from different Participant Trading Permit holders. This is
meant to address a scenario where a customer order sender has
``sponsored access'' to the Exchange through two different Participant
Trading Permit holders (i.e., one customer order sender submitting
orders to the Exchange through two Trading Permits).\11\ Also, if a
Participant Trading Permit holder wishes to aggregate a Trading
Account, which has been assigned to its own MTP Trading Group, with
other Trading Accounts, in order to form a new MTP Trading Group, the
single Trading Account must only be designated to the new aggregated
MTP Trading Group and will no longer be associated with its original
MTP Trading Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This scenario might occur, for example, where a sponsored
access order sender is in the process of transitioning its trading
activity from one Trading Account controlled by one Participant
Trading Permit holder to the Trading Account of another Participant
Trading Permit holder. In such a case, the sponsored access order
sender may wish to use the proposed MTP functionality to prevent
executions of orders from the two Trading Accounts during the
transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enabling or Disabling MTP
    As suggested by the proposed definition of ``MTP Trading Group,''
the Exchange proposes to require Participants Trading Permit holders to
request that the Exchange enable the proposed MTP functionality for
specified MTP Trading Groups. This will give the Exchange an
opportunity to admonish Participants of the key aspects of the proposed
MTP functionality, described in detail below, and will also facilitate
the Exchange's monitoring of the use of MTP. This will further provide
an opportunity for the Participant(s) to determine which Trading
Accounts will be part of MTP Trading Groups and which Trading Accounts
will not be subject to the MTP functionality. Therefore, orders that
originate from an MTP Trading Group will always be subject to the
proposed MTP functionality.
    Thus, proposed Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F)(i) provides that the MTP
modifier shall only be available for an order that originated from a
Trading Account, as defined under proposed Article 1, Rule 1(ll), that
has been assigned to an MTP Trading Group, as defined under Article 1,
Rule 1(mm).\12\ It further states that an order that originated from a
Trading Account that is not part of an MTP Trading Group shall not be
subject to MTP and any attached MTP modifiers shall be ignored. It
further provides that any Exchange-approved changes to the
applicability of MTP to a Trading Account shall be effective on the
trading day following the date of the request to enable or disable MTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Prior to implementing the proposed MTP functionality, the
Exchange will create a form document that will outline key aspects
of the proposed MTP functionality, including the fact that the use
of MTP modifiers may result in the cancellation of a customer order
by an order submitted by or on behalf of another customer. This form
document will be given to Participants requesting that the MTP
functionality be enabled for designated Trading Accounts. Among
other things, the form document will require such Participants to
designate Trading Accounts to MTP Trading Groups and to acknowledge
receipt of the form document prior to the MTP functionality being
enabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Triggering MTP
    Proposed Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F)(ii) provides that an MTP
modifier is comprised of a compulsory MTP Action, listed under proposed
subparagraph (iii), and an optional MTP sublevel designation and that
the MTP modifier on the incoming order shall control the interaction
between the contra-side orders. With respect to the actual
functionality, it further states that an incoming limit or market order
designated with an MTP modifier without an MTP sublevel designation
will be prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order
from the same MTP Trading Group, as defined under proposed Article 1,
Rule 1(mm).\13\ If, however, the incoming order is marked by an MTP
modifier with an MTP sublevel designation,\14\ the order will only be
prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order from the
same MTP Trading Group if the resting order is marked by the same MTP
sublevel designation. Moreover, MTP shall only be applicable to
marketable contra-side orders that are both principal orders or are
both agency orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Initially, it is important to note the distinction between
an incoming order and a resting order. An incoming order is usually
an order that has been submitted to the Matching System that has not
yet interacted with the CHX book. If and when an incoming order
posts to the CHX book, the order becomes a resting order. However, a
resting order can become an incoming order if it is being price slid
into a new price point, pursuant to a price sliding functionality
offered by the Exchange (e.g., CHX Only Price Sliding Processes
under Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C)). A discussion of the interplay
between the CHX Only Price Sliding Processes and the proposed MTP
functionality may be found below. As such, it is inaccurate to
characterize the newer order as always being the incoming order and
the older order as always being the resting order. The actual
distinction between incoming and resting orders is based on the
liquidity removing/providing fee structure utilized by the Exchange.
See CHX Fee Schedule, Section E. Therefore, an order that removes
liquidity from the CHX book will always be the incoming order and an
order that provides liquidity to the CHX book will always be the
resting order.
    \14\ The Exchange proposes to permit sixty-two (62) distinct MTP
sublevel designations (i.e., a-z; A-Z; 0-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed MTP functionality is based on the interaction between
MTP Trading Groups and if applicable, subgroups within the MTP Trading
Group, which are created through the use of optional MTP sublevel
designations. As discussed above, an incoming order marked with an MTP
modifier will not be allowed to execute against a resting opposite side
order from the same MTP Trading Group.\15\

However, if the MTP modifier of the incoming order indicates an MTP
sublevel designation, the order will be considered to have originated
from a subgroup within the MTP Trading Group, designated by the
sublevel value,\16\ and will only be prevented from executing against
resting opposite side orders from the same subgroup (i.e., same
optional MTP sublevel designation). Consequently, an incoming order
that originated from a subgroup will not be prevented from executing
against opposite side resting orders from the same MTP Trading Group,
so long as the opposite side order is not part of the same subgroup
(i.e., the resting order is either marked by a different MTP sublevel
designation or is not marked by any MTP sublevel designation).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed MTP functionality does not require resting
orders subject to the proposed MTP functionality to be marked by an
MTP modifier. Since all orders subject to the MTP functionality will
originate from an MTP Trading Group, the specific MTP Trading Group
designations of resting orders will be known, regardless of whether
or not the order has an MTP modifier attached.
    \16\ See supra note 14.
    \17\ Although an incoming order may not be prevented from
executing against opposite side resting orders by MTP, the incoming
order may nevertheless be prevented from executing against resting
opposite side orders due to other order modifiers that may be
attached to contra-side orders. For example, an incoming Post Only
order marked by an MTP modifier would be cancelled if the order
would remove liquidity from the CHX book, prior to the Matching
System considering the MTP modifier. See Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(D).
A detailed discussion of the interplay between the proposed MTP
functionality and other existing order modifiers may be found below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, where the incoming order is marked by an MTP modifier and
originates from an MTP Trading Group, the proposed MTP functionality
will prevent an order execution under the following circumstances:
    (1) Both the incoming and resting orders originated from the same
MTP Trading Group and neither order is part of a subgroup (see Example
1);
    (2) Both the incoming and resting orders originated from the same
subgroup within an MTP Trading Group (see Examples 2 and 3); or
    (3) Both the incoming and resting orders are from the same MTP
Trading Group, where the incoming order is not part of a subgroup and
the resting order is part of any subgroup (see Example 4).
    In contrast, the proposed MTP functionality will not prevent an
order execution under the following circumstances:
    (1) The incoming order is not marked by an MTP modifier or is
marked MTP Inactive;
    (2) Both the incoming and resting orders originated from different
MTP Trading Groups; or
    (3) Both the incoming and resting orders originated from the same
MTP Trading Group, where the incoming order is part of any subgroup and
the resting order is not part of a subgroup (see Example 5).

    Example 1. Assume that the CHX book has one resting offer for
100 shares of security XYZ priced at $10.01/share and no resting
bids for security XYZ. Assume that the resting offer originated from
Trading Account ZAAA, under the Trading Permit held by Participant
Z, which is part of MTP Trading Group Z1. Assume that the resting
offer is marked with an MTP modifier,\18\ is not marked by an MTP
sublevel designation and is a Day \19\ limit order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purposes of determining whether or not the proposed
MTP functionality is triggered, the type of MTP Action specified in
the MTP code is irrelevant. So long as the MTP code contains one of
the MTP Actions listed under proposed subparagraph (iii), the
incoming order is considered to be ``designated with an MTP
modifier,'' as required by proposed rule.
    \19\ Article 1, Rule 2(d)(1) defines ``Day'' as ``a modifier
that requires an order to be in effect only for the day on which it
is submitted to the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assume further that an incoming bid for 100 shares of security
XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received by the Matching System.
Assume that the incoming bid originated from Trading Account ZBBB,
under a Trading Permit held by Participant Z, which is also part of
MTP Trading Group Z1. Assume that the incoming bid is designated
with an MTP modifier, is not marked with an MTP sublevel designation
and is a Day limit order.
    Under this example, MTP would prevent the incoming bid from
executing against the resting offer because both orders originated
from the same MTP Trading Group Z1, regardless of the fact that the
orders originated from different Trading Accounts. As discussed
above, only MTP Trading Groups and subgroups are relevant to the
proposed MTP functionality.
    Example 2. Assume the same as Example 1, except that the resting
offer and incoming bid are both marked by the same optional MTP
sublevel designation of ``1.''
    Under this example, since both orders are part of the same
subgroup Z1-1, MTP would prevent the incoming bid from executing
against the resting offer.
    Example 3. Assume the same as Example 1, except that the resting
offer is marked by the MTP sublevel designation of ``1'' and the
incoming bid is marked by another MTP sublevel designation of ``2.''
    Under this example, since the resting offer and incoming bid are
part of different MTP Trading Subgroups (i.e., resting offer is part
of subgroup Z1-1 and incoming bid part of subgroup Z1-2), MTP would
not prevent the incoming bid from executing against the resting
offer.
    Example 4. Assume the same as Example 1 and the incoming bid is
not marked by an MTP sublevel designation. Assume, however, that the
resting offer is marked by an MTP sublevel designation of ``1.''
Since the MTP modifier on the incoming bid controls, the fact that
the incoming bid is not part of subgroup means that the Matching
System will not consider the subgroup of the resting offer.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange notes that it is purposely treating the
absence of an MTP sublevel designation on the incoming order and
presence of an MTP sublevel designation on the resting order one way
(i.e., prevent execution) and the absence of an MTP sublevel
designation on the resting order and presence of an MTP sublevel
designation on the incoming bid another way (i.e., not preventing
execution). The two seemingly similar scenarios are treated
differently due to the need to implement an MTP scheme that will
produce consistent and predictable result, especially where the
contra-side orders have different MTP Actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, similar to Example 1, MTP would prevent the incoming bid
from executing against the resting offer because both orders
originated from the same MTP Trading Group Z1.
    Example 5. Assume the same as Example 1 and the resting offer is
not marked by an MTP sublevel designation. Assume, however, that the
incoming bid is marked by an MTP sublevel designation of ``1'' and
is, thus, part of subgroup Z1-1.
    Under this example, the Matching System will consider the subgroup
of the resting offer since the incoming bid is part of subgroup Z1-1.
Moreover, since the resting offer is not part of a subgroup, the
Matching System will treat the resting offer as being part of a
different subgroup. Thus, MTP will not prevent the execution of the
incoming bid against the resting offer, because the Matching System
will treat the orders as being part of different subgroups.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to limit the application of MTP to
marketable contra-side orders that are both principal orders or are
both agency orders (i.e., principal-principal or agency-agency). The
main purpose of this limitation is to prevent an agency top-of-book
resting order from being cancelled by an incoming principal order from
the same MTP Trading Group and vice versa. The Exchange anticipates
that the vast majority of Participant Trading Permit holders that may
utilize the proposed MTP functionality will be proprietary traders and,
as such, all orders that originate from its MTP Trading Group(s) would
be principal orders. However, since some of our Participant Trading
Permit holders maintain proprietary and agency accounts, this
limitation would prevent customer orders from being cancelled by
proprietary orders. As such, the Exchange proposes to only permit
marketable principal-principal and agency-agency orders from being
eligible for the proposed MTP functionality.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In addition to marketable principal-principal orders, the
proposed MTP functionality may be utilized where the marketable
contra-side orders are both agency orders from the same customer.
For instance, an MTP Trading Group may contain one agency account,
through which only one customer is submitting orders to the Matching
System as a sponsored access order sender. In such a case, the
sponsored access order sender could use the proposed MTP
functionality to prevent self-execution of its orders.

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

MTP Order Cancellations
    Once MTP is triggered, the next step is to determine which order(s)
would be cancelled, if any. To this end, proposed subparagraph (iii)
provides that the following MTP Actions may be applied to any incoming
limit or market orders at the MTP Trading Group level as a default or
at the individual order level ad hoc:
    (a) MTP Cancel Incoming (``N''): An incoming limit or market order
marked ``N'' will not execute against opposite side resting interest
originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if
applicable. Only the incoming order will be cancelled pursuant to MTP.
    (b) MTP Cancel Resting (``O''): An incoming limit or market order
marked ``O'' will not execute against opposite side resting interest
originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if
applicable. Only the resting order will be cancelled pursuant to MTP.
    (c) MTP Cancel Both (``B''): An incoming limit or market order
marked ``B'' will not execute against opposite side resting interest
originating from the same MTP Trading Group or MTP sublevel, if
applicable. The entire size of both orders will be cancelled pursuant
to MTP.
    Moreover, proposed subparagraph (iv) details the MTP Inactivate
override function, which provides that an incoming limit or market
order marked ``I'' will inactivate the default MTP action for the
incoming order and will not prevent the order from executing against
any resting opposite side orders.\23\ Also, ``I'' may only be applied
at the individual order level ad hoc. Finally, an incoming order marked
``I'' may be marked by an optional MTP sublevel designation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Where contra-side orders are not prevented from executing
due to the incoming order being marked ``I,'' the orders may execute
in spite of MTP being triggered. In contrast, where contra-side
orders are not prevented from executing due to the contra-side
orders not being part of the same MTP Trading Group or trading
subgroup, the orders may execute because MTP has not been triggered.
    \24\ The purpose of allowing an incoming order marked ``I'' to
rest with an active sublevel designation is to permit an order
sender to deactivate the MTP functionality for an incoming order,
but to keep the MTP subgroup functionality alive once the order
became a resting order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following Examples 1-4 illustrate how each one of the three MTP
Actions and the MTP Inactivate would function.
    Example 1. Assume that an order to buy 100 shares of security
XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received by the Matching System and
becomes a resting order on the CHX book. Subsequently, an order to
sell 100 shares of security XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received
by the Matching System from the same MTP Trading Group and is marked
``N.'' Further assume that neither contra-side order is marked by an
MTP sublevel designation and that both contra-side orders are Day
limit orders.
    Under this ``N'' Example 1, the full size of the incoming offer
would be cancelled and the resting bid would remain on the CHX book.
If the incoming bid were for 200 shares or 50 shares, the result
would remain the same because the ``N'' MTP Action would require
that the full size of the incoming bid be cancelled.
    Example 2. Assume that an order to buy 100 shares of security
XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received by the Matching System and
becomes a resting order on the CHX book. Subsequently, an order to
sell 100 shares of security XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received
by the Matching System from the same MTP Trading Group and is marked
``O.'' Further assume that neither contra-side order is marked by an
optional MTP sublevel designation and that both contra-side orders
are Day limit orders.
    Under this Example 2, the full size of the resting offer would be
cancelled and the incoming bid would not be cancelled pursuant to
MTP.\25\ If the incoming bid were for 200 shares or 50 shares, the
result would remain the same because the ``O'' MTP Action would require
that the full size of the resting offer to be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In this situation, the incoming offer would execute against
resting opposite side order, if available, or post the CHX book. As
discussed below, since the MTP modifier is not considered by the
Matching System until all other modifiers are first considered, an
incoming offer marked with an MTP modifier and MTP Action of ``O''
will execute against other resting opposite side orders, if
available, or post the CHX book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 3. Assume that an order to buy 100 shares of security
XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received by the Matching System and
becomes a resting order on the CHX book. Subsequently, an order to
sell 100 shares of security XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received
by the Matching System from the same MTP Trading Group and is marked
``B.'' Further assume that neither contra-side order is marked by an
optional MTP sublevel designation and that both contra-side orders
are Day limit orders.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this Example 3, the full sizes of both the incoming offer
and resting bid would be cancelled. If the incoming bid were for 200
shares or 50 shares, the result would remain the same because the
``B'' MTP Action would require that the full size of both orders be
cancelled.
    Example 4. Assume that an order to buy 100 shares of security
XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received by the Matching System and
becomes a resting order on the CHX book. Subsequently, an order to
sell 100 shares of security XYZ priced at $10.02/share is received
by the Matching System from the same MTP Trading Group and is marked
``I.'' Further assume that neither contra-side order is marked by an
MTP sublevel designation and that both contra-side orders are Day
limit orders.\27\ Also assume that the MTP Trading Group from which
the contra-side orders originated has a default MTP Action of ``N.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this Example 4, the incoming offer would execute against
the resting bid because the ``I'' modifier inactivated the default
MTP Action of the MTP Trading Group, namely ``N.'' In contrast, if
the incoming offer were not marked by the ``I'' modifier, MTP would
have prevented the execution of the orders and cancelled the
incoming offer. Also, since the MTP modifier on the incoming order
always controls the MTP interaction, the fact that the resting order
has a MTP modifier with a ``N'' MTP Action is irrelevant.
MTP and Other Order Modifiers
    The proposed MTP modifier is fully compatible with all order
execution,\28\ display,\29\ and duration modifiers,\30\ that are
applicable to limit and market orders.\31\ This is because the proposed
MTP modifier is the only order modifier that requires the Matching
System to consider the MTP Trading Group and subgroup of an order.
Thus, there are no other modifiers that would directly conflict with
the proposed MTP modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1) and (3).
    \29\ See Article 1, Rule 2(c).
    \30\ See Article 1, Rule 2(d).
    \31\ This rule filing will only address the interplay between
the MTP modifier and other order modifiers. However, the Exchange
notes that certain order modifiers are not compatible with other
modifiers. Such incompatibilities are noted in Article 1, Rule 2 and
in recent Rule 19b-4 rule filings that have dealt with order types
and modifiers. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69538 (May 8,
2013), 78 FR 28671 (May 15, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-10); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69075 (March 8, 2013), 78 FR
16311 (March 14, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an incoming order marked by an MTP modifier and at least one
other modifier is executable against a resting opposite side order, the
Matching System will verify the permissibility of the match first
against the non-MTP modifiers before considering the MTP Trading Group
or subgroup of the contra-side orders as required by the MTP modifier.
That is, the MTP modifier will always be considered last. Thus, if such
an incoming order is to be cancelled for reasons other than the MTP
designation, the incoming order would be cancelled before the Matching
System would have the opportunity to consider the MTP Trading Groups or
subgroups of the contra-side orders. This priority scheme ensures that
the

proposed MTP modifier can only be triggered once all of the other order
modifiers attached to an order have been considered. The following
examples illustrate how this order modifier priority scheme would work
when the proposed MTP modifier is paired with the ``Immediate Or
Cancel'' (``IOC''),\32\ ``Post Only,'' \33\ or ``CHX Only'' \34\ order
modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Article 1, Rule 2(d)(4) defines ``Immediate Or Cancel,'' in
pertinent part, as ``a modifier that requires an order to be
executed, either in whole or in part and for limit orders, at or
better than its limit price, as soon as the order is received by the
Matching System, with any unexecuted balance of the order to be
immediately cancelled.
    \33\ Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(D) defines ``Post Only'' as follows
(emphasis added):
    ```Post Only': a limit order modifier that requires an order to
be posted on the Exchange and not routed away to another trading
center.
    A limit order marked Post Only shall be deemed to have been
received ``Do Not Route,'' as defined under paragraph (b)(3)(A),
which cannot be overridden by the order sender.
    A Post Only order will be immediately cancelled under the
following circumstances:
    (i) The Post Only order would remove liquidity from the CHX
book; or
    (ii) At the time of order entry, the Post Only order would lock
or cross a Protected Quotation of an external market; provided,
however, that if the Post Only order is marked ``CHX Only'' and is
eligible for the CHX Only Price Sliding Processes, pursuant to
Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C), the Post Only order that would lock or
cross a Protected Quotation of an external market shall be subject
to the CHX Only Price Sliding Processes or Limit Up-Limit Down Price
Sliding, pursuant to Article 20, Rule 2A(b), whichever is
applicable, and shall not be immediately cancelled.''
    \34\ ``CHX Only'' is a limit order modifier that requires an
order (1) to be ranked and executed on the Exchange without routing
away and (2) to be eligible for the CHX Only Price Sliding
Processes. The CHX Only Price Sliding Processes will reprice, re-
rank and/or re-display certain CHX Only orders multiple times
depending on changes to the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'')
(the repricing of CHX Only sell short orders subject to Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO is dependent solely on declines to the National Best
Bid (``NBB'')), so long as the order can be ranked and displayed in
an increment consistent with the provisions of Regulation NMS and
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, until the order is executed, cancelled
or the original limit price is reached. See Article 1, Rule
2(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1. Assume that the Matching System receives an incoming
limit buy order (``Bid A'') for 1,000 shares of security XYZ priced
at $10.10/share that originated from MTP Trading Group D1 and is
marked IOC and MTP, with an MTP Action of ``O'' and no MTP sublevel
designation. Assume that the CHX book for security XYZ contains no
resting bids, but does have two resting offers (``Offers A and B'').
Assume that Offer A originated from MTP Trading Group C1 and is for
200 shares priced at $10.09/share. Assume that Offer B originated
from MTP Trading Group D1 and is for 200 shares priced at $10.10/
share. Assume also that the Offer A is the only Protected Quotation
of any market at the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for security XYZ.
    Under this Example 1, since Bid A is immediately executable
against Offer A at $10.09, the IOC designation would not cancel Bid
A. The Matching System would then consider the MTP Trading Groups of
Bid A and Offer A because Bid A is marked ``MTP.'' Since Bid A and
Offer A are from different MTP Trading Groups, MTP would not prevent
an execution and Bid A would execute against Offer A at the full
size of Offer A priced at $10.09/share. In turn, Bid A would be
decremented by 200 shares and would have 800 unexecuted shares
remaining.
    The Matching System will then go through the same process with
respect to Offer B. Since Offer B is at the limit price of Bid A,
the IOC designation would not cancel Bid A. However, since Bid A and
Offer B both originated from the same MTP Trading Group D1, the MTP
functionality would prevent an execution and the MTP Action of ``O''
would require Offer B to be cancelled because it is the resting
order. Consequently, the Matching System will go through the
attached order modifiers once again to determine what to do with the
unexecuted balance of Bid A. Since the CHX book no longer has any
resting opposite side orders for security XYZ, the IOC designation
would require the unexecuted balance of Bid A to be cancelled.
    If Bid A instead had an MTP Action of ``N,'' the triggering of
the MTP Action would have resulted in the unexecuted balance of Bid
A (i.e., 800 shares) being cancelled and Offer B remaining on the
CHX book.
    Example 2. Assume that the Matching System receives an incoming
limit buy order (``Bid A'') for 1,000 shares of security XYZ priced
at $10.10/share that originated from MTP Trading Group D1 and is
marked Day, Post Only, and MTP, with an MTP Action of ``B'' and no
MTP sublevel designation. Assume that the CHX book for security XYZ
contains no resting bids, but does have one resting offer (``Offer
A'') originated from MTP Trading Group D1 and is for 200 shares
priced at $10.09/share. Assume also that the Offer A is the only
Protected Quotation of any market at the NBO for security XYZ.
    Under this Example 2, the Matching System would first determine
the permissibility of the match against the Post Only modifier.
Since Post Only orders cannot ``remove liquidity from the CHX
book,'' Bid A would be cancelled because Bid A is an incoming order
that would remove liquidity from the CHX book. Thus, Bid A would be
cancelled before the Matching System would be able to consider the
MTP Trading Groups of the contra-side orders.
    Example 3. Assume that the Matching System receives a fully-
displayable incoming limit buy order (``Bid A'') for 1,000 shares of
security XYZ priced at $10.10/share that originated from MTP Trading
Group D1 and is marked Day, CHX Only, and MTP, with an MTP Action of
``O'' and no MTP sublevel designation. Assume that the CHX book for
security XYZ is empty. Assume also that the National Best Bid and
Offer (``NBBO'') for security XYZ is $10.07 x $10.09 and the short
sale price test restriction of Regulation SHO is not in effect.
    Since the CHX book is empty with respect to security XYZ and the
display of Bid A at $10.10 would cross the NBO at $10.09, the CHX
Only Price Sliding Processes, specifically NMS Price Sliding,\35\
would price slide Bid A to be ranked at $10.09 (i.e., the NBB
locking price) and displayed at $10.08 (i.e., one price increment
below the NBO). The new NBBO for security XYZ would be $10.08 x
$10.09, with Bid A being the NBB. Once Bid A is price slid and
posted to the CHX book, Bid A becomes a resting order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a subsequent incoming offer were to execute against Bid A,
Bid A would receive the liquidity providing credit and the opposite
side offer would pay the liquidity removing fee. Moreover, since
there is no resting opposite side order to match against Bid A, the
Matching System would not consider the MTP modifier and thus, MTP
would not prevent an execution.
    Example 4. Assume the same as Example 3 and the CHX book
contains only Bid A and no other bids or offers. Assume that after
Bid A was price slid, the Matching System receives an incoming limit
sell order (``Offer A'') for 2,000 shares of security XYZ priced at
$10.10/share that originated from MTP Trading Group D1 that is
marked ``Do Not Display,'' \36\ but is not marked by an MTP
modifier. Thus, the CHX book as to security XYZ is now $10.08 x
$10.10. Assume further that after Offer A posts to the CHX book, the
NBO (which is not on CHX) moves away to $10.10 and thus, the NBBO
for security XYZ changes from $10.08 x $10.09 to $10.08 x $10.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Article 1, Rule 2(c)(2) provides that ``Do Not Display'' is
``a modifier, for orders of at least 1,000 shares when entered, that
requires the order not be displayed in whole or in part.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to NMS Price Sliding, since the NBO moved away to
$10.10, resting Bid A would be permitted to be ranked at its
original limit price of $10.10 and displayed at $10.09. Since Offer
A is resting undisplayed at $10.10, Bid A would be price slid into a
price point that is already occupied by Offer A. Thus, Bid A would
become an incoming order and, if executable against Offer A, would
take liquidity from the CHX book. The Matching System would then
verify the permissibility of the order execution against the order
modifiers of the contra-side orders. Offer A has no order modifiers
that would prevent an execution. On the opposite side, the CHX Only
designation of Bid A would not prevent an execution. However, since
Bid A is marked ``MTP'' and both contra-side orders originated from
MTP Trading Group D1, MTP would be triggered. Moreover, since Bid A
has an MTP Action of ``O,'' the resting order would be cancelled.
Thus, Offer A would be cancelled and Bid A would be ranked at $10.10
and displayed at $10.09. Consequently, the new NBBO for security XYZ
would be $10.09 x $10.10, where Bid A becomes the NBB.
    Example 5. Assume the same as Example 4, except that Bid A was
also marked Post Only. Thus, Bid A was marked Day, CHX Only, Post
Only, and MTP, with an MTP Action of ``O'' and no MTP sublevel
designation. Since a Post Only order will be immediately cancelled
if the order is price slid into a price point already occupied by

an opposite side order, unlike Example 4, Bid A would be cancelled
pursuant to the Post Only modifier before the Matching System would
consider the MTP modifier. Thus, under this Example 5, price slid
Bid A would be cancelled and Offer A would remain on the CHX book
undisplayed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange submits that the proposed rule changes to adopt an MTP
functionality is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general
\37\ and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\38\
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transaction in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and, in general, by protecting
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed MTP
functionality will allow order senders to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable executions against themselves. Additionally, the
proposed MTP modifier will streamline certain regulatory functions of
the Exchange by reducing false positive results that may occur on
Exchange-generated wash trading surveillance reports when orders are
executed under the same account symbol. Consequently, the proposed
adoption of the MTP functionality will benefit Exchange customers by
improving fill rates and promoting competition among market centers
offering similar products and services, which is consistent with the
aforementioned objectives of Section 6(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does believe that the proposed rule change will have
an impact on competition. However, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose a burden on competition that is
unnecessary or inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
To the contrary, the proposed MTP functionality should act as a
positive force for competition by providing an alternative to similar
functionality offered by other Exchanges, such as the ``Match Trade
Prevention Modifiers'' offered by BATS.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \39\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\40\
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)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \41\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\42\ 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 as of December 2, 2013. The Exchange requested
such waiver so that it may offer Participants the proposed MTP
functionality earlier. The Exchange stated that its proposal does not
propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, as
all changes proposed are changes to the Exchange's rules based on the
rules of another self-regulatory organization, BATS Y-Exchange
(``BYX''), or modified versions of the corresponding BYX rules, as
described in further detail in the filing. According to the Exchange,
the proposed MTP functionality and the BATS-Y ``Match Trade Prevention
Modifiers'' are both designed to streamline certain regulatory
functions of the Exchange by reducing false positive results that may
occur on Exchange-generated wash trading surveillance reports when
orders are executed under the same account symbol. Thus, the Exchange
believes that it is in the interest of protecting investors to provide
the new functionality at the earliest time possible. Based on the
Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that waiving the
operative delay as of December 2, 2013 is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative as of
December 2, 2013.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)..
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \43\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \44\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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-CHX-2013-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2013-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CHX-2013-20,
and should be submitted on or before December 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28848 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 46831]
[DOCID:fr11se09-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Draft Technical Standard Order (TSO)-
C154c for Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on Frequency of 978
MHz

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing the availability of and requesting
comment on proposed TSO-C154c. The Avionic Systems Branch of the
Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA has
presented a proposed revision of existing TSO-C154b. RTCA, Inc. Special
Committee (SC)-186 is revising RTCA Document DO-282A, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Universal Access Transceiver
(UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), which will
become the Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) for the proposed TSO-
154c. Proposed TSO-C154c can be found at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/
draft_docs/. Comments may be filed electronically following
instructions on the Web page. Comments may also be filed using the
addresses provided below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by the above deadline to Mr. Chip
Bulger, AIR-130, Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A), 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chip Bulger, Avionics Systems
Branch, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington,
DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2009.
David W. Hempe,
Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division.
[FR Doc. E9-21951 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69089-69090]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0514]

Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive With
Adjunct Wound Closure Device Intended for the Topical Approximation of
Skin; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive with Adjunct Wound Closure Device
Intended for the Topical Approximation of Skin.'' This guidance
document describes a means by which tissue adhesives with adjunct wound
closure devices intended for the topical approximation of skin may
comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a
final rule to classify tissue adhesive with adjunct wound closure
device intended for the topical approximation of skin into class II
(special controls). This guidance document is immediately in effect as
the special control for tissue adhesive with adjunct wound closure
device intended for approximation of skin, but it remains subject to
comment in accordance with the agency's good guidance practices (GGPs).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the guidance at
any time. General comments on agency guidance are welcome at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue
Adhesive with Adjunct Wound Closure Device Intended for the Topical
Approximation of Skin'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers,
International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your
request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George J. Mattamal, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1434, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6396.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing
a final rule classifying tissue adhesive with adjunct wound closure
device intended for the topical approximation of skin into class II
(special controls), under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)). This guidance
document will serve as the special control for the tissue adhesive with
adjunct wound closure device intended for the topical approximation of
skin device. Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that any person
who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) for a device that has not previously been
classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the
device in class III

under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, request FDA to classify the
device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C
Act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify
the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial
classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an
order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal
Register announcing such classification. Because of the timeframes
established by section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA has determined, under
Sec.  10.115(g)(2) (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)), that it is not feasible to
allow for public participation before issuing this guidance as a final
guidance document. Therefore, FDA is issuing this guidance document as
a level 1 guidance document that is immediately in effect. FDA will
consider any comments that are received in response to this notice to
determine whether to amend the guidance document.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (Sec.  10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on tissue adhesive with adjunct wound closure
device intended for topical approximation of skin. It does not create
or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind
FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive with
Adjunct Wound Closure Device Intended for the Topical Approximation of
Skin,'' you may either send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to
receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to
301-796-8149 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number
1683 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 807, subpart E have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0130; the collections of information in 21 CFR part
812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0119; and the collections of information in 21
CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 4, 2010.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-28333 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71450]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of
October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64314). The amendment is being made to reflect
changes in the Date and Time, Agenda, and Procedure portions of the
document. We also are postponing a session regarding biologics license
application (BLA) 125377, with the proposed trade name Yervoy
(ipilimumab), manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. The proposed
indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of advanced
melanoma in patients who have received prior therapy. This portion of
the meeting has been postponed due to the need to complete the review
of additional data submitted by the applicant. Future meeting dates may
be announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Vesely, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138,<PHONE_NUMBER> in
the Washington, DC area, code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information
Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 19, 2010
(75 FR 64314), FDA announced that a meeting of the Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee would be held on December 2, 2010. On page 64314, in
the first column, the Date and Time portion of the document is changed
to read as follows:
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 2, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    On page 64314, in the second column, the Agenda portion of the
document is changed to read as follows:
    Agenda: On December 2, 2010, the committee will discuss new drug
application (NDA) 022-405, with the proposed trade name Zictifa
(vandetanib) Tablets, manufactured by iPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
represented by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (authorized U.S. agent).
The proposed indication (use) for this product is for the treatment of
patients with unresectable (non-operable) locally advanced or
metastatic medullary thyroid cancer.
    On page 64314, in the second column, the third sentence in the
Procedure portion of the document is changed to read as follows:
    Procedure: Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: November 17, 2010.
Joanne Less,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-29522 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86647-86648]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-37]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
October 16, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On October 16, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 65899. FRA
received no comments related to the proposed collection of information.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995).
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Safety and Health Requirements Related to Camp Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0595.
    Abstract: Subparts C and E of 49 CFR part 228 address the
construction of railroad-provided sleeping quarters (camp cars) and set
certain safety and health requirements for such camp cars.
Specifically, subpart E of part 228 prescribes minimum safety and
health requirements for camp cars that a railroad provides as sleeping
quarters to any of its train employees, signal employees, and
dispatching service employees (covered-service employees) and
individuals employed to maintain its right-of-way. Subpart E requires
railroad-provided camp cars to be clean, safe, and sanitary, and be
equipped with indoor toilets, potable water, and other features to
protect the health of car occupants. Subpart C of part 228 prohibits a
railroad from positioning a camp car intended for occupancy by
individuals employed to maintain the railroad's right-of-way in the
immediate vicinity of a switching or humping yard that handles railcars
containing hazardous materials. Generally, the requirements of subparts
C and E of part 228 are intended to provide covered-service employees
an opportunity for rest free from the interruptions caused by noise
under the control of the railroad.

    The information collected under this rule is used by FRA to ensure
railroads operating camp cars comply with all the requirements mandated
in this regulation to protect the health and safety of camp car
occupants.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (estimates) of a currently
approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 1 railroad.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 6,125.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 994 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $74,440.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-28830 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P