[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40621-40624]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0188; FMCSA-2012-0164; FMCSA-2014-0019; FMCSA-
2014-0020; FMCSA-2016-0043; FMCSA-2016-0216; FMCSA-2016-0218; FMCSA-
2016-0219]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 192
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before September
14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0188; FMCSA-2012-0164;
FMCSA-2014-0019; FMCSA-2014-0020; FMCSA-2016-0043; FMCSA-2016-0216;
FMCSA-2016-0218; FMCSA-2016-0219 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day e.t.,
365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in

49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to
drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or
clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for
control.
    The 192 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 192 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the diabetes requirement (75 FR 42477; 75 FR 57329;
77 FR 46149; 77 FR 59450; 79 FR 47702; 79 FR 47711; 79 FR 63210; 81 FR
51541; 81 FR 52505; 81 FR 52947; 81 FR 59718; 81 FR 67421; 81 FR 72640;
81 FR 72651; 81 FR 84688; 82 FR 12899). They have maintained their
required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues
that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the
previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate
basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September
and are discussed below:
    As of September 7, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 29 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 51541, 81 FR
72651):

Larry S. Ankerson (WI)
Kenneth D. Beatty (MS)
Brandon J. Brown (TN)
Justin D. Campbell (AL)
Vito J. Dambra (PA)
Linda D. Davis (IN)
Frank A. DeCarolis (KS)
Orlando Dominguez (CA)
Scott L. Fetzer (PA)
Carl E. Fisher (PA)
Ryan A. Gehrke (MN)
Shane R. Gousie (MA)
Randal E. Hampton (NV)
Reginald M. Hart (GA)
Dennis J. Kniffen (SD)
Allen E. Lemaster (SC)
Wayne F. Leonard (IL)
Joshua W. Lockwood (MD)
Brian P. McCabe (WA)
Charles M. McKenzie (OH)
Michael C. McNamara (SC)
Michael S. Meulenberg (MI)
Timothy J. Newton (IA)
David T. Petty (CA)
Ronald K. Roe (PA)
Harry W. Roebuck (TX)
James D. Tichnor (NJ)
Scott W. Waterman (SD)
Richard A. Wojciak (CT)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0043. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 7, 2018, and will expire on
September 7, 2020.
    As of September 8, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 33 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 52505, 81 FR
84688):

Robert C. Bartleson (WI)
Melvin J. Bowers (SC)
Howard A. Cambridge (PA)
Donald J. Charette (CT)
Robert C. Davis (PA)
Matthew P. Delaney (MA)
Scot D. Dragon (CT)
Patrick J. Flynn (IA)
Tyson E. Frazier (NH)
Charles R. Hurston (LA)
Lovie L. Ivory (AL)
Rodrigo Jackson (TX)
Keith L. Jaynes (ME)
James J. Jopp (MN)
Evan D. Keese (TN)
Michael J. Kelly (NY)
Mark A. Lewis (SD)
Lloyd I. Lynn (IA)
Vincent Marino (WV)
Dean A. McCoy (IA)
Bruce A. Miller (IA)
Eric J. O'Neal (MD)
Eugene E. Patterson III (TX)
Michael G. Schleining (WA)
Ryan A. Scopino (ME)
Robert W. Shafer (SD)
Terry J. Southards (KS)
Timothy T. Stanton (MN)
Eric W. Thomason (KS)
Glenn M. Turley (WV)
Randy R. Wallace (MO)
Merle L. Weyer (SD)
Norman D. Zamarche (UT)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0218. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 8, 2018, and will expire on
September 8, 2020.
    As of September 10, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 31 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 52947, 81 FR
67421):

Dale E. Bliss (WI)
Charles W. Bobbitt (WA)
Thomas Buckmaster (FL)
Carlos A. Chapa (TX)
David E. Colorado (UT)
Francis J. Crawford (NY)
James W. Creech (IN)
Kirk A. Devitis (NJ)
Melinda L. Echols (WA)
Justin W. Garriott (WY)
David J. Goergen (MN)
Pedro L. Gonzalez (MA)
Jeffrey K. Hagen (WI)
Charles D. Hall (CA)
Bonita K. Hunt (NC)
John M. Isley (NC)
Jeffrey A. Kidd (MD)
Craig T. Kite (OH)
Kevin E. Lester (VA)
Eric T. Maier (CA)
Javier Melendez (TX)
Terry L. Neiman (PA)
Peter Z. Pall (FL)
Vernon Piper (NY)
Sean A. Rivera (AZ)
James R. Sauceda (NM)
Tony B. Wetherell (MN)
Mark A. Williams (GA)
Steven M. Wilson (IL)
Don E. Wood (TX)
Charles P. Zenns (NY)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0216. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 10, 2018, and will expire on
September 10, 2020.
    As of September 16, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 58 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from

driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 47702, 79 FR 47711, 79 FR
63210, 82 FR 12899):

Vincent M. Branch (VA)
James M. Brooks (VA)
Perry C. Bullis (PA)
Richard E. Campney (IA)
James E. Cantrell, Jr. (AL)
Steven J. Causie (MI)
Wesley A. Chain (TX)
Kristy S. Clark (VA)
Richard M. Cohen (NJ)
Dwayne P. Daniels (IL)
James T. Dodge (CO)
Richard D. Domingo (NV)
John J. Dominguez (TX)
Bradley C. Dunlap (IL)
Gary W. Giles (TX)
John A. Gillingham (PA)
Ronald L. Glade (IL)
Brent C. Godshalk (IN)
Benny B. Gonzales (TX)
Jerry W. Gott (IA)
Daniel E. Harris (IL)
Randy S. Holz (IA)
Henderson R. Hughes (NY)
James L. Hummel (WA)
Joseph T. Ingiosi (MI)
Michael J. Javenkoski (MN)
Steven T. Juhl (WI)
Joseph A. Kipus (OH)
Kevin L. Kreakie (OH)
Kevin C. Lewis (LA)
Richard M. Mackey (TX)
Paul J. Marshall (UT)
David L. McDonald (IL)
Kevin J. McGrath (MA)
Thomas K. Miszler (PA)
Jerry W. Murphy (MS)
Christopher D. Murray (NC)
Robert D. Noe (IL)
Kyle W. Parker (CA)
Gary L. Roberts (CT)
Eric D. Roberts (MI)
Tommy A. Rollins (GA)
Janice M. Rowles (PA)
William B. Rupert, Jr. (PA)
Ahmed A. Saleh (MI)
Bradlee R. Saxby (IL)
Robert M. Schmitz (IA)
Barry L. Schwab (MI)
Geoffrey E. Showaker (PA)
Bryce J. Smith (UT)
David R. Sprenkel (PA)
Jeffrey R. Stevens (PA)
Artilla M. Thomas (IL)
Dale W. Tucker (VA)
William C. Vickery (NY)
Robert A. Whitcomb (MA)
Rodney L. Wichman (IL)
Richard D. Wiegartz (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0019, FMCSA-
2014-0020. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 16, 2018,
and will expire on September 16, 2020.
    As of September 20, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 42477, 75 FR
57329, 82 FR 12899):

Tommy S. Boden (ID)
Dustin G. Cook (OH)
Nathan J. Enloe (MO)
Joseph B. Hall (GA)
Mark H. Horne (NH)
Michael J. Hurst (MI)
Chad W. Lawyer (IN)
Thomas A. Mentley (NY)
Justin P. Sibigtroth (IL)
Duane A. Wages (ND)
Michael J. Williams (NY)
Edward L. Winget, Sr. (MS)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2010-0188. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 20, 2018, and will expire on
September 20, 2020.
    As of September 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 46149, 77 FR
59450, 82 FR 12899):

Matthew R. Lanciault (NH)
Steven L. Leslie (MI)
Del A. Meath (MN)
Benny D. Puck (IA)
Bob F. Rice (WA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0164. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 27, 2018, and will expire on
September 27, 2020.
    As of September 30, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 24 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 59718, 81 FR
72640):

Scott G. Barr (FL)
John L. Bauers (NE)
Robert J. Borgese (NJ)
Rodger L. Bratton (LA)
John T. Brecken (MI)
Ross L. Christenson (MN)
Daniel B. Cox (WA)
Raymond Davila (NJ)
Craig W. Dennis (MN)
Douglas Endicott (VA)
Thomas P. Fogerty (MA)
M. A. Gandolfo (NY)
Merlyn C. Gerdes (IA)
Fabian Guerrero-Rodriguez (NV)
James C. Holcomb (LA)
Robert J. Lockwood (CT)
Adam W. Martin (MI)
Lucas J. Preston (ND)
William B. Robinson (AR)
F. Marino M. Sanchez (NY)
Andrew D. Sanford (TN)
Michael A. Taylor (CT)
Jerry W. Thomas (NC)
Ray E. Vaughan (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0219. Their
exemptions are applicable as of September 30, 2018, and will expire on
September 30, 2020.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within
two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia,
significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any
involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or
personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of
hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's
or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 192 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: August 8, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17610 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD

JANUARY 2012 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center

Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Thursday, January 26, 2012

HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA–HQ–ORD–2011–0954

9:45 AM*	Convene Public Meeting – Jim Downing, Designated Federal
Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor

Introduction of Board Members – Sean Philpott, Ph.D., HSRB Chair

	Welcome - Warren Lux, M.D., Director, Program in Human Research Ethics,
Office of the Science Advisor, EPA

	Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, EPA

	Follow-up on Previous HSRB Recommendations – Mr. William Jordan, OPP,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Session 1:	A new scenario design and associated protocol from the
Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) describing proposed
research to measure dermal and inhalation exposure to workers who mix,
load, and apply liquid pesticides with powered handgun equipment.

10:00 AM 	EPA Science Review – Mr. Jeff Evans, (OPP, EPA)

10:25 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification – Sean Philpott, Ph.D.
(HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

10:55 AM	EPA Ethics Assessment - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)

11:15 AM	Board Questions of Clarification – Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB
Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

11:35 AM 	Public Comments

11:50 AM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

Is the research likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful
for assessing the exposure of workers mixing, loading, and applying
pesticides in managed horticultural facilities using powered handgun
equipment?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
part 26, subparts K and L?

12:30 PM* 	Lunch

Session 2:	A completed scenario monograph and study report from the
Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF) in which the
dermal and inhalation exposure of professional janitorial workers was
monitored as they applied a liquid antimicrobial pesticide product for
indoor surface disinfecting using a pressurized aerosol can.

1:30 PM* 	EPA Science Review – Mr. Tim Leighton (OPP, EPA), Jonathan
Cohen, Ph.D., ICF International

1:55 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification – Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB
Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

2:20 PM	EPA Ethics Assessment - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)

2:45 PM	Board Questions of Clarification – Sean Philpott, Ph.D. (HSRB
Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor

3:10 PM 	Public Comments

3:25 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

Was the research reported in the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task
Force II (AEATF) completed aerosol study report faithful to the design
and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the
limitations on these data that should be considered when using the data
in estimating the exposure of professional janitorial workers who apply
liquid antimicrobial pesticide products to indoor surfaces using
pressurized aerosol cans?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

Does available information support a determination that the study was
conducted in

substantial compliance with subparts K and L of 40 CFR Part 26?

4:20 PM	An update from the Work Group on Return of Individual Research
Results

4:30 PM	Adjournment

*Agenda times are approximate and subject to change depending upon the
discussion.


[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56858]
[DOCID:fr17se10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. FDA-2006-N-0304] (formerly Docket No. 2006N-0262)
RIN 0910-AF93

Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential-Use
Designation (Flunisolide, etc.); Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of April 14, 2010 (75 FR
19213). The document amended FDA's regulation on the use of ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs) in self-pressurized containers to remove
the essential-use designations for flunisolide, triamcinolone,
metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination,
cromolyn, and nedocromil used in oral pressurized metered-dose inhalers
(MDIs). The document was published with an inadvertent error. This
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Diane Sullivan, Office of Policy,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm.
3210, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2010-8467, appearing on page
19213, in the Federal Register of Wednesday, April 14, 2010, the
following correction is made:
    1. On page 19213, in the third column, the heading ``RIN 0910-
AF92'' is corrected to read ``RIN 0910-AF93''.

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-23195 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: October 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 57343-57344]
[DOCID:fr02oc08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-510-001, FERC-510]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Submitted for OMB Review

September 26, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review of this information collection requirement. Any interested
person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of
those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission
received no comments in response to an earlier Federal Register notice
of March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13535-13536) and has made this notation in its
submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by October 31,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. (1902-0068) as a
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at
202-395-7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings, such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of
the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC08-510-001.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at (http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp). To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-510 ``Application for Surrender of Hydropower
License'' (OMB No. 1902-0068) is used by the Commission to implement
the statutory provisions of sections 4(e), 6 and 13 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. sections 797(e), 799 and 806. Section 4(e)
gives the Commission authority to issue licenses for the purposes of
constructing, operating and maintaining dams, water conduits,
reservoirs, powerhouses, transmissions lines or other power project
works necessary or convenient for developing and improving navigation,
transmissions and utilization of power over which Congress has
jurisdiction. Section 6 gives the Commission the authority to prescribe
the conditions of licenses including the revocation or surrender of the
license. Section 13 defines the Commission's authority to delegate time
periods for when a license must be terminated if project construction
has not begun. Surrender of a license may be desired by a licensee when
a licensed project is retired or not constructed or natural
catastrophes have damaged or destroyed the project facilities. The
information collected under the designation FERC-510 is in the form of
a written application for surrender of a hydropower license. The
information is used by Commission staff to determine the broad impact
of such surrender. The Commission will issue a notice soliciting
comments from the public and other agencies and conduct a careful
review of the prepared application before issuing an order for
Surrender of a License. The order is the result of an analysis of the
information produced, i.e., economic, environmental concerns, etc.,
which are examined to determine if the application for surrender is
warranted. The order implements the existing regulations and is
inclusive for surrender of all types of hydropower licenses issued by
FERC and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission. The Commission
implements these mandatory filing requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 18 CRF 6.1-6.4.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of        Average burden
            Number of respondents annually                responses per        hours per         Total annual
                                                            respondent          response         burden hours
(1)                                                                  (2)                (3)     (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8....................................................                 1                 10                  80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $4,861.00. (80 hours/2080
hours per year times $126,384 per year average per employee =
$4,861.00). The cost per respondent is $608.00.
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23213 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84684-84686]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-[2016-0221]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 39 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on November 1, 2016. The
exemptions expire on November 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On September 30, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from 39 individuals and
requested comments from the public (81 FR 67425. The public comment
period closed on October 31, 2016, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 39 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 39 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 36 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the September 30, 2016, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) that each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 39 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):

Thomas A. Alcon (NM)
John K. Bottkol (FL)
Donald J. Brinkman (CO)
John D. Cline (AZ)
Paul H. Coleman, Jr. (PA)
John D. Colpitts (NC)
Salvatore A. Corrao (MA)
Patrick R. Dawson (NY)
Kevin A. Dietz (IL)
Steven M. Dunham (NH)
James H. Elliott (OH)
Frank A. W. Emrath (WI)
Kirk M. Faria (MA)
Richard L. Farris (WA)
Alex J. Gerena-Santiago (PA)
Matthew D. Homan (MI)
Donna J. Jones (IL)
Jamison G. Land (VA)
Richard H. Leger (LA)
Solomon J. Mayfield (GA)
Calvin W. McDaniel (MI)
Clay A. McDaniel (MO)
Steven D. Mellott (OH)
Sean R. T. Murray (MN)
Chris A. Perez (IL)
Luther S. Pickell (KS)
Michael K. Piirto (IN)
William A. Pope, Jr. (PA)
Jeffrey E. Prevost (ME)
Eric W. Ransom (WY)
Phillip A. Rentschler (IN)
Steven L. Saddler (FL)
Allan C. Smith (IA)
Craig A. Squib (PA)
Timothy B. Suck (MI)
Tyrel J. Turner (ID)

Daniel R. Violette (OR)
Robert C. Williams (OR)
David W. Wiltrout (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: November 16, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-28215 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13176-13182]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04229]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96976; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13

February 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 15, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
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. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
amend Rule 11.9(e)(3) to provide that orders may be modified from
either sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.12(a)(4) to provide that a
change in position from either sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) will result
in a loss of time priority if made when a short sale circuit breaker
pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is in effect. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13(b)(1) to provide when the
Exchange may route orders with a short sale instruction when a short
sale circuit breaker pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is in
effect. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.12(a)(4) to reflect that if
a User \5\ changes the position of an order from either sell long to
sell short exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short
(or vice versa) while a Regulation SHO Rule 201 \6\ short sale circuit
breaker (the ``SSCB'') \7\ is in effect, the change will result in a
loss of time priority. This proposed change is substantially similar to
MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') Rule 2616 (discussed infra).\8\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.9(e)(3) to provide that an
order may be modified from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a
Replace Message. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
11.13(b)(1) (Regulation SHO) to make clear that short sale orders \9\
entered with an order instruction to post to an away trading center
when an SSCB is in effect are eligible for routing by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.201; Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
    \7\ For any execution of a short sale order to occur on the
Exchange when a short sale price test restriction is in effect, the
price must be better than the national best bid (``NBB''), unless
the sell order was initially displayed by the System at a price
above then the current NBB or is market ``short exempt'' pursuant to
Regulation SHO. See Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(1).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93506 (November 2,
2021), 86 FR 61796 (November 8, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-35) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend
Exchange Rule 2616, Priority of Orders).
    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.200(a). The term ``short sale'' is defined as
``any sale of a security which the seller does not own or any sale
which is consummated by the delivery of a security borrowed by, or
for the account of, the seller.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Loss for Position Changes During an SSCB
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.9(e)(3), certain order modifications
may be made via a Replace Message (i.e., other than changing a limit
order to a market order, only the price, stop price, the sell long or
sell short indicator, Max Floor of a Reserve Order, and size of the
order may be changed by a Replace Message), while other modifications
require that the existing order be cancelled, and a new order be
entered. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 11.12(a)(4), when an order is
cancelled or replaced in accordance with Rule 11.9(e)(3), such order
will retain its priority only for certain types of modifications (e.g.,
changing an order's position from sell long to sell short or a decrease
in the size of the order). Certain other types of order modifications
\10\ (e.g., a change in the order's price) will otherwise receive a new
timestamp and lose priority on the BZX Book.\11\ For example, if
pursuant to Rule 11.9(e)(3) an order is modified from sell long to sell
short, such modification may be accomplished via a Replace Message, and
the System will, pursuant to Rule 11.12(a)(4), allow such order to
retain its original timestamp and priority on the BZX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 11.12(a)(4).
    \11\ See Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to amend Rule 11.9(e)(3) to provide
that an order's position may be modified from sell long to sell short
exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) through the use of a Replace Message. The Exchange notes that
Users complete a position modification from sell long to sell short
exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) using the same functionality to mark an order as either sell
long or sell short under Rule 11.9(e)(3). The Exchange believes this
change will provide additional specificity to the rule and ensure the
rule uses terminology consistent with the description of Replace
Messages and their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule
11.12(a)(4) (discussed infra).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.12(a)(4) in order to
align the Rule text with how the System currently behaves when an SSCB
is in effect, and to provide clarification to Users that when an SSCB
is in effect that changing an order's position from either sell long to
sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) will instead result in such order receiving a new timestamp and
losing its original priority. The Exchange is not proposing to change
the timestamp for modifications from either sell long to sell short (or
vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) when an
SSCB is not in effect. Additionally, the Exchange is also proposing to
add language to Rule 11.12(a)(4) stating that a modification from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) is a type of order
modification that would retain time priority and would not receive a
new timestamp, regardless of whether an SSCB is in effect (discussed
infra).
    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Rule
11.12(a)(4) to provide that an order is being modified

by a Replace Message rather than cancelled and replaced with a new
order. This change is intended to provide that an order does not need
to be cancelled and replaced with a new order, but rather includes
modifications to orders via the use of a Replace Message. The proposed
changes to Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(4) are based on previously-approved
changes to MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a)(5), which is substantially similar
to Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(4).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that a User requests an order modification using a
Replace Message, the System will first determine whether the
modification is of a kind that may result in a loss of time priority in
order to determine how the modification will be handled by the System.
For example, as noted in Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(4), a modification to
the price of an order will cause the loss of time priority. Therefore,
in the event of a modification of the price of an order, the System
will first determine that the type of modification may result in a loss
of time priority and then handle the order accordingly by giving it a
new timestamp.\13\ Since an order modification from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) may result in a change in price of the order when an SSCB is in
effect, the Exchange immediately gives the order a new timestamp. As
previously discussed, a modification from sell long to sell short (or
vice versa) or a modification from sell short exempt to sell short (or
vice versa) requires the System to determine whether an order must be
re-priced to be compliant with the requirements of Regulation SHO. The
Exchange notes, however, that an order modification from sell long to
sell short exempt (or vice versa) does not require the System to
determine whether the order shall be re-priced as a result of the
modification, as both a sell long and a sell short exempt order may
execute at a more aggressive price than a sell short order when an SSCB
is in effect. Given that the System does not have to evaluate whether a
price change is required as part of an order modification from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa), this specific order
modification does not lose priority on the BZX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Alternatively, as noted in Rule 11.12(a)(4) a modification
that involves a decrease in the size of the order will not cause the
loss of time priority. Therefore, in order to decrease the size of
the order, the System will first determine that the type of
modification will not result in a loss of time priority and will
handle the order in a completely different manner than it would if
the order would have resulted in a loss of time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, if a sell long order is modified to a sell short
order (or vice versa) or a sell short exempt order is modified to a
sell short order (or vice versa) while an SSCB is in effect, the
Exchange cannot simply change the order from sell long to sell short
(or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa)
while resting on the book, but rather must verify that the sell short
order would not violate Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) \14\ of Regulation SHO
before the order is re-added to the BZX Book. Therefore, as such a
modification may result in a change of the order's price, the System
gives the order a new timestamp, resulting in a loss of priority.
Similarly, if a sell short order is modified to a sell long order (or
vice versa) or a sell short order is modified to a sell short exempt
(or vice versa) order while an SSCB is in effect, the order may be
eligible to display at a more aggressive price. As such, the System
gives the order a new timestamp, again resulting in a loss of time
priority, but potentially in improved price priority. However, if an
order is modified from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa)
when an SSCB is in effect, the System does not have to take an
additional step to evaluate whether the modification violates Rule
201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO given that sell long and sell short
exempt orders may execute at more aggressive prices that sell short
orders during an SSCB. Accordingly, an order modification from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) would not result in a loss of
priority. Stated differently, the System treats orders marked sell long
and sell short exempt the same, and only order modifications from
either sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to
sell short (or vice versa) would cause an order to lose priority during
an SSCB because the System is required to determine whether a change in
the order's price is required as a consequence of the change in status
from either sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa). This order price analysis by the
System is required in order to prevent potential violations of Rule
201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO as orders may be required to be re-
priced to prevent potential violations of Rule 201 when the SSCB is in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO, the
Exchange must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display
of a short sale order of a covered security at a price that is less
than or equal to the current NBB during an SSCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate order behavior with a modification from sell long to
sell short during an SSCB, consider the following example:
    Assume the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') \15\ in a given
covered security \16\ is $5.00 x $5.10 while an SSCB is in effect. A
User enters a non-displayed sell long order with a limit price of
$5.00. Subsequently, the User modifies the position of the order from
sell long to sell short, while the NBBO has remained the same. In order
to effect the modification, the System determines that a modification
from sell long to sell short may result in a change in the order's
price in order to prevent potential violations of Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of
Regulation SHO, as orders may be required to be repriced to prevent
potential violations of Rule 201 when the SSCB is in effect.
Accordingly, the order loses its time priority in order for the System
to handle the potential price change. In this example, the subject
order resulted in a change of the order's price as the sell short order
was not eligible for execution at a price equal to the NBB.
Nonetheless, even if the modification would not have ultimately
resulted in a price change, the modification would have necessarily
caused the System to evaluate whether a price change was necessary and,
thus, required a new timestamp, resulting in a loss of time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(o).
    \16\ Rule 201(a)(1) of Regulation SHO defines the term ``covered
security'' to mean any ``NMS stock'' as defined under Rule
600(b)(48) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(48) of Regulation NMS
defines an ``NMS stock'' as ``any NMS security other than an
option.'' Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
security'' as ``any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' See 17 CFR 242.201(a)(1); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47); and 17
CFR 242.600(b)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order modifications from sell long to sell short (or vice versa),
sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa), or sell short exempt to
sell short (or vice versa) that occur when an SSCB is not in effect
will not be subject to a loss of priority on the Exchange, as orders
may be required to be re-priced to prevent potential violations of Rule
201 of Regulation SHO, only when an SSCB is in effect. When an SSCB is
not in effect the System does not have to take the additional step of
determining whether a price change is required before effecting a
position modification from sell long to sell short (or vice versa),
sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa),

or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) and as such, these
order modifications can be processed without a loss of priority.
Routing Clarification for Orders That Will Post to an Away Trading
Center
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 11.13(b)(1) in order
to codify that any sell short order that will post to an away Trading
Center \17\ will be routed when an SSCB is in effect. Given that sell
short orders that post to an away Trading Center are subjected to the
receiving Trading Center's processes for handling sell short orders in
compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO,\18\ the Exchange believes
the capability to route all sell short orders with the ability to post
to an away market center during an SSCB is appropriate and that
Exchange Rules should be amended to codify such functionality.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Rule 600(b)(82) of Regulation NMS defines a ``Trading
Center'' as ``a national securities exchange or national securities
association that operates an SRO trading facility, an alternative
trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market maker, or
any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally by
trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.'' See 17 CFR
242.201(a)(9); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(82).
    \18\ Rule 201(b)(1) of Regulation SHO requires a Trading Center
(e.g., Cboe BZX) to establish, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution
or display of a short sale order of a covered security at a price
that is less than or equal to the national best bid if the price of
that covered security decrease by 10% or more from the covered
security's closing price as determined by the listing market for the
covered security as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior
day. See 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1).
    \19\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4763; NYSE Rule 440B; and Nasdaq's
Regulation SHO Frequently Asked Questions (updated March 10, 2011),
available at https://nasdaqtrader.com/content/marketregulation/regsho/regshoFAQs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would provide Users with clarity as how
the Exchange will handle routable sell short orders when the SSCB is in
effect. For instance, Rule 11.13(b)(1) explicitly states that the Post
to Away \20\ or ROOC \21\ routing options will post an order to another
Trading Center's book when the SSCB is in effect.\22\ However, while
Rule 11.13(b)(3)(K) provides that the RDOT \23\ routing option may post
an order to another Trading Center's book (which could occur if the
order is entered with a time-in-force (``TIF'') of Day),\24\ Rule
11.13(b)(1) does not state that the RDOT routing option is available to
orders marked sell short during an SSCB. The Exchange seeks to provide
that any routing strategy that would post the remainder of the routed
order to another Trading Center's book is eligible for routing during
an SSCB. Under Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(1), IOC \25\ orders marked
``short'' that are not eligible for routing during an SSCB will
continue to be cancelled. The unfilled portions of limit orders marked
``short'' that are ineligible for routing due to an SSCB will continue
to be posted to the BZX Book subject to the price sliding process as
defined in Exchange Rule 11.9(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(H). Post to Away is a routing
option that routes the remainder of a routed order to and posts such
order on the order book of a destination on the System routing table
as specified by the User.
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(N). ROOC is a routing option
for orders that the entering firm wishes to designate for
participation in the opening, re-opening (following a halt,
suspension, or pause), or closing process of a primary listing
market other than the Exchange (IEX, NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE American, or
NYSE Arca) if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of
such market. If shares remain unexecuted after attempting to execute
in the opening, re-opening, or closing process, they are either
posted to the BZX Book, executed, or routed to destinations on the
System routing table.
    \22\ The Exchange notes that orders routed pursuant to the Post
to Away routing option that include a short sale instruction are
identified as ``short'' and are subject to the receiving Trading
Center's processes for handling sell short orders in compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
79149 (October 25, 2016) 81 FR 75464 (October 31, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-
2016-65) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change to BZX Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing).
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(K). RDOT is a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares and then
is sent to destinations on the System routing table. If shares
remain unexecuted after routing, they are sent to the NYSE and can
be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing,
they are posted to the NYSE, unless otherwise instructed by the
User.
    \24\ A ``Day Order'' refers to a limit order to buy or sell
which, if not executed, expires at the end of Regular Trading Hours.
See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2). Day Orders routed pursuant to the RDOT
routing option that include a short sale instruction are identified
as ``short'' and are subject to the receiving Trading Center's
processes for handling short sale orders in compliance with Rule 201
of Regulation SHO.
    \25\ An ``IOC Order'' refers to a limit order that is to be
executed in whole or part as soon as such order is received and the
portion not immediately executed on the Exchange or another trading
center is treated as cancelled and is not posted to the BZX Book.
See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\26\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \27\ 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) \28\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change to Rule 11.9(e)(3) is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it aligns the rule text with the how the System currently
operates and helps to eliminate any potential confusion Users may have
regarding current Rule 11.9(e)(3). This proposed amendment will not
change existing System behavior and Users will have more certainty
about how orders may be modified, which is related to the proposed
changes to Rule 11.12(a)(4).
    Additionally, the proposed rule change to Rule 11.12(a)(4) is
designed to ensure all sell short orders are subjected to the
Exchange's process for ensuring that the order would not violate Rule
201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO during an SSCB. In order to verify the
displayed price of an order with a position modification from sell long
to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or
vice versa) during an SSCB, the System handles the modification as if a
price change would occur, even if the modification does not ultimately
result in a price change. If the System permitted such order
modifications to forego this process, no order modifications from sell
long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short
(or vice versa) during an SSCB would result in a loss of time priority,
and as a result, certain sell short orders could be permitted to
display or execute at an impermissible price that would not comply with
Rule 201(b)(1)(ii). The Exchange's process is designed to ensure
compliance with Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO and is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. As designed,
during an SSCB, the System determines up front whether an order
modification could result in a price change before it can properly
effect the modification. If the modification is of a type that may
result in a price change to comply with Regulation SHO, the

System gives the order a new timestamp. As a result, such a
modification from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) always results in a loss of time
priority even if the modification did not result in a change of the
order's price. Conversely, an order modification from sell long to sell
short exempt (or vice versa) does not result in an order losing
priority because the System does not conduct an order price analysis to
ensure compliance with Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO as both
sell long and sell short exempt orders may execute at more aggressive
prices than sell short orders during an SSCB.
    Moreover, the Exchange processes billions of order modifications
each month, with only a limited amount of modifications involving a
change from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) during an SSCB. Out of the
billions of order modifications processed by the Cboe affiliated equity
exchanges during the months of May, June, and July 2022, the Exchange
identified approximately 369,884 order modifications from sell long to
sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) across the Cboe affiliated equity exchanges during an SSCB that
would potentially be affected by the proposed amendment to Rule
11.12(a)(4).\29\ Given that 369,884 order modifications during an SSCB
across the Cboe affiliated equity exchanges is an extremely small
percentage of the billions of order modifications that the Cboe
affiliated equity exchanges processed during the months of May, June,
and July 2022, the Exchange believes that any benefit from restoring
priority to this limited amount of order modifications is outweighed by
the burden of changing the System to be able to conduct an order price
analysis in real time to prevent potential violations of Rule
201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO and to permit these orders to retain
priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ When identifying orders impacted by this functionality
during May, June, and July 2022, the Exchange broadly identified any
orders regardless of whether those orders were at or near the NBBO
(i.e., marketable orders) at the time of the event. The Cboe
affiliated equities exchanges refers to the Exchange, Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), and
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed change to Rule 11.12(a)(4) will also
protect investors and the public interest because it continues to
promote compliance with Regulation SHO, including Regulation SHO's
order marking requirements \30\ and Users' compliance with any
applicable exemptions. Users are currently able to modify their order's
position using a Replace Message and the proposed rule change does not
alter a User's ability to do so. Users are required to mark their
orders properly upon entry and upon modification \31\ and the proposed
amendment to Rule 11.12(a)(4) does not change this obligation. As they
are required to do today, Users must also continue to ensure that their
order complies with any applicable exemption from Regulation SHO that
they seek to avail themselves of, not only at the time of entry, but
also at the time they change an order's position via a Replace
Message.\32\ The Exchange notes that it will continue to surveil for
compliance with Exchange Rules 11.19 and 11.21 as well as Regulation
SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 242.200(g).
    \31\ See Exchange Rule 11.19 (``Short Sales''). The rule
provides that ``[a]ll short sale orders shall be identified as
``short'' or ``short exempt'' when entered into the System. If
marked ``short exempt,'' the Exchange shall execute, display and/or
route an order without regard to any short sale price test
restriction in effect under Regulation SHO. The Exchange relies on
the marking of an order as ``short exempt'' when handling such
order, and thus, it is the entering Member's responsibility, not the
Exchange's responsibility, to comply with the requirements of
Regulation SHO relating to marking of orders as ``short exempt.''.''
    \32\ A change in an order's price or position as well as an
increase in an order's size via a Replace Message implicitly results
in a new order. All Users must, therefore, ensure continued
compliance with the order marking and locate requirements of
Regulation SHO (17 CFR 242.201) including compliance with Question
2.6 of the Commission's ``Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Regulation SHO'' available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm (last accessed October 3,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to Rule 11.9(e)(3) is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it does not seek to change how order
modifications from either sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) are
accomplished. Instead, the proposed change provides clarity to Users
that a position change from either sell long to sell short exempt (or
vice versa) or from sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) may
be accomplished through the use of a Replace Message and does not
require an order to be cancelled and a new order submitted in order to
modify an order's position to sell short exempt. The proposed change to
Rule 11.9(e)(3) will also provide continuity between Rule 11.9(e)(3)
and the proposed changes to Rule 11.12(a)(4), and as such are directly
intended to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and national market system.
    The proposed change to Rule 11.12(a)(4) removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it addresses a limited scenario when a User modifies an
order's position using a Replace Message during an SSCB. The proposed
rule change specifically states that orders whose positions are
modified from either sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell
short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message when
an SSCB is not in effect will not receive a new timestamp and will not
lose priority as compared to other orders on the BZX Book. Further, the
proposed rule change provides that order modifications from sell long
to sell short exempt (or vice versa) using a Replace Message will not
lose priority as compared to other orders on the BZX Book, regardless
of whether an SSCB is in effect. Additionally, the proposed change to
Rule 11.12(a)(4) removes impediments to and perfects a free and open
market system because it is designed to make clear to Users that orders
may be modified using a Replace Message without losing priority subject
to the limitations named in Rule 11.12(a)(4). This change does not
amend the meaning or operation of Rule 11.12(a)(4).
    The proposed changes to Rule 11.13(b)(1) are designed to provide
that any sell short order that will post to an away Trading Center will
be routed when an SSCB is in effect. In addition, providing Users the
ability to send sell short orders that will post to an away Trading
Center, and thus are routable when an SSCB is in effect provides them
additional flexibility with regard to the handling of their orders, and
may provide additional execution opportunities for those orders. Given
this, the proposed amendments to Rule 11.13(b)(1) are directly targeted
at removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system, as well as to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets.
    The proposed change to Rule 11.13(b)(1) further promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and perfects a free and open market
system by identifying which orders containing routing instructions are
eligible to route and post to an away market center during an SSCB. As
all Trading Centers are required to comply with Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of
Regulation SHO, a User can expect that an order routed from the
Exchange to an away market center will

be treated similarly on the away market center as it would on the
Exchange during an SSCB. There is no change to the meaning or operation
of this rule, but rather an amendment to make clear that an order that
is eligible to post to an away market may be routed during an SSCB.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the proposed rule changes
are not being proposed for competitive reasons. Rather, the proposed
amendment to Rule 11.9(e)(3) provides that modifications from sell long
to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or from sell short exempt to sell
short (or vice versa) may be accomplished through the use of a Replace
Message. This proposed amendment will not change existing System
behavior and Users will have more certainty about how orders may be
modified, which is related to the proposed changes to Rule 11.12(a)(4).
Order modifications from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) use
the same Replace Message functionality as a modification from either
sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or from sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa), and amending Rule 11.9(e)(3) to
describe this behavior for Users is directly related to the Exchange's
proposed changes to Rule 11.12(a)(4) and does not impose a burden on
inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act.
    Additionally, the proposed amendments to Rule 11.12(a)(4) will
enhance the transparency of the rules by revising the rule text. By
revising the rule text to align with the current System behavior, Users
will be aware that if they modify their orders from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) or from sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) and an SSCB is in effect, their orders will be given a new
timestamp and lose time priority. Users are free to consider this
proposed change as part of their overall experience with the Exchange,
which also includes execution quality and functionality offerings, when
making order routing decisions. Additionally, the Exchange notes that
the proposed rule change applies equally to all Users, and all Users'
orders are subject to the described functionality, regardless of their
size. Users may not opt-out of this System functionality.
    Furthermore, this loss of time priority for a position modification
would only occur when an SSCB is in effect and the Exchange is required
to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The impact of an order
modification from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message during an
SSCB with respect to loss of time priority is no different than when a
User seeks to increase the size of their order using a Replace Message
or when a User seeks to change the position of their order by
cancelling the existing order and entering a new order. In each
instance, the order will receive a new timestamp reflecting the time
the modification was made and the order would lose priority as compared
to other orders on the BZX Book.
    Furthermore, the proposed change to Rule 11.12(a)(4) does not
impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act in that the proposed change does
not present a novel approach to sell short order handling. Indeed, the
proposed changes to Rule 11.12(a)(4) are consistent with a recently
approved amendment \33\ to MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a).\34\ Pursuant to
MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a), any position modification involving a change
from sell long to either sell short exempt or sell short (or vice
versa) will result in the order receiving a new timestamp and the order
losing priority, as compared to other orders resting on the book while
an SSCB is in effect. The Exchange's proposed Rule is also similar to
MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a) in that modifications from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) and modifications from sell short exempt to sell
short (or vice versa) will be subject to a loss of priority during an
SSCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Supra note 8.
    \34\ MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a) states: ``[i]n the event an order
has been modified via a Cancel/Replace message in accordance with
Rule 2614(e) above, such order only retains its timestamp if such
modification involves a decrease in the size of the order, a change
to the Max Floor of an order with a Reserve Quantity, or when a
Short Sale Period, as defined in Exchange Rule 2614(g)(3)(A), is not
in effect, a change in position from (A) sell to sell short; (B)
sell to sell short exempt; (C) sell short to sell; (D) sell short to
sell short exempt; (E) sell short exempt to sell; and (F) sell short
exempt to sell short.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change is substantially similar to that of
MIAX Pearl, the Exchange's proposal differs in that its proposal would
not cause orders modified from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) to lose priority during an SSCB, whereas MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a)
specifically states that a change from sell long to sell short exempt
is a type of order modification that would be subject to a loss of
priority during an SSCB. The Exchange's System does not view an order
modification from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) as a
type of change which requires an order price analysis in order to
prevent potential violations of Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO,
and as such does not cause these types of order modifications to result
in a loss of priority.
    In addition, the proposed rule change is more narrowly tailored
than the rules of Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''), which requires
market participants to enter a new order where an order's position is
changed even when an SSCB is not in effect \35\ and Nasdaq Stock
Market, LLC (``Nasdaq''), which requires orders to be cancelled if the
order's position is redesignated as short during a Short Sale Period
and the order is not priced at a Permitted Price or higher under Nasdaq
Rule 4763(e).\36\ In each instance mentioned above, the original order
would need to be replaced with a new order and therefore would receive
a new timestamp which would result in a loss of priority. The Exchange
is seeking to only append a new timestamp and cause a loss of priority
as compared to other orders on the BZX Book when an order's position is
modified from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) during an SSCB, which is more
narrowly-tailored than the rules governing similar order behavior on
MIAX Pearl, IEX and Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See IEX Rule 11.190(d)(3) and IEX Rule 11.190(d)(4).
    \36\ See Nasdaq Equity 4, Rule 4756(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed change to Rule 11.13(b)(1) does not
impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act as it makes clear that orders
that may post to away market centers will be routed during an SSCB.
Users will have the ability to take this factor into consideration when
determining which routing strategy to use when entering an order on the
Exchange and are able to consider this proposed change as part of their
overall experience with the Exchange. If a User disfavors this proposed
change they are free to use a different routing strategy or submit an
order directly to an away market center. This proposed change is not
being proposed for competitive reasons, but rather to make clear that
any order eligible to be posted to an away market center will be routed
during an SSCB. As each market center is required to comply with Rule
201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange believes that any order eligible to
be posted to an

away market center should be permitted to route, as the order would be
subject to the away market center's rules regarding compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO upon posting.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \37\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\39\ 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. The Exchange states
the proposed rule change provides clarity on how orders modified to
sell short exempt are accomplished and the priority of orders marked
sell short exempt. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
related to modifications from sell long to sell short (or vice versa)
or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) that occur during an
SSCB will affect only a small percentage of overall order
modifications.\40\ Finally, the Exchange states that the proposed
change to Rule 11.11(a) will permit orders containing routing
instructions entered by all Users that would post to an away market
during an SSCB to route to away market centers immediately upon
becoming operative. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposed rule change does not raise any new
or novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \40\ See supra note 29.
    \41\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-012.

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-CboeBZX-2023-012. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-CboeBZX-2023-012, and should be
submitted on or before March 23, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04229 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P