[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4428-4430]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0161]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the SR 401 Drawbridges across the Canaveral Barge Canal, mile
5.5, at Port Canaveral, Florida. This modification is necessary to
reduce vehicular traffic congestion and to ensure the safety of
roadways while passengers are transiting to and from the cruise ship
terminals. Since the arrival of additional cruise ships to the Port of
Canaveral, traffic back-ups have been caused by the

on demand drawbridge openings. This modification allows the bridges to
not open to navigation during prime cruise ship passenger loading and
unloading times on Saturdays and Sundays.

DATES: This rule is effective March 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0161. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
FL Florida
SR State Route
MHW Mean High Water
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On October 23, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
from drawbridge regulation with request for comments entitled
Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL
in the Federal Register (82 FR 48940). We received three comments on
this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
499.
    The SR 401 Drawbridges across the Canaveral Barge Canal, mile 5.5,
at Port Canaveral, FL are three parallel double leaf bascule bridges
that have a vertical clearance of 25 feet at MHW in the closed to
navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between the
fender system. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.273(b), the
bridges shall open on signal, except that from 6:15 a.m. to 8 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays,
the bridges need not open and from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the bridges must
open on signal if at least three hours notice is given. The bridges
must open as soon as possible for the passage of public vessels of the
Unites States and tugs with tows. The Canaveral Port Authority, with
concurrence from the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation
requested the operating schedule be changed to allow the bridges to not
open to navigation from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
This will provide relief to the increase in vehicle traffic congestion
on the weekends while meeting the reasonable needs of navigation.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received three comments to this rule stating that
this regulation is unnecessarily restrictive to recreational boaters.
All comments also recommended that if the Coast Guard moves forward
with changing the operating schedule, they should consider allowing the
bridge to open on the hour during the 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. closure. The
Coast Guard has considered this recommendation, however, after
analyzing vessel traffic data versus vehicular traffic data, the Coast
Guard has determined that the benefit of reducing vehicle traffic to
enhance the safety on the roadways, without compromising the safety of
mariners, outweighs an inconvenience to vessels transiting the
waterway.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge before and after the proposed
periods. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position
may continue to do so.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship

between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it
is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum
for the Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further
Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.273 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.273  Canaveral Barge Canal.

* * * * *
    (b) The drawspans of the SR401 Drawbridges, mile 5.5 at Port
Canaveral, must open on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal
holidays and from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, the
drawspans need not be opened for the passage of vessels. From 10 p.m.
to 6 a.m., the drawspans must open on signal if at least three hours
notice is given. The drawspans must open as soon as possible for the
passage of public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows.

    Dated: January 22, 2018.
Peter J. Brown,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2018-01913 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27041-27043]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0071]

Hours of Service of Drivers: McKee Foods Transportation, LLC,
Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from McKee
Foods Transportation, LLC (MFT) for an exemption from certain
provisions of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. MFT
proposes that its team drivers engaged in delivery and backhaul
operations be granted an exemption from the HOS rules pertaining to use
of a sleeper berth (SB). Current HOS rules require that all SB rest
regimens include, in part, the regular use of a SB period for at least
8 hours--combined with a separate period of at least 2 hours, either in
the SB, off-duty or some combination of both--to gain the equivalent of
at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. MFT proposes that its team
drivers be allowed to take the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off
duty by splitting SB time into two periods totaling 10 hours, provided
neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours. FMCSA requests public
comment on MFT's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2014-0071 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     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 or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, and follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street address
listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Public participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you 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. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    McKee Foods Transportation, LLC (MFT) is a private carrier that
sells fresh snack products under the Little Debbie, Sunbelt, and
Drake's brands. MFT delivers products in interstate commerce to 48
states and parts of Canada from three manufacturing distribution
centers and one stand-alone distribution center. MFT employs
approximately 650 drivers, using more than 300 tractor-trailer
combinations. MFT uses team drivers on customer delivery trips to
maximize efficiency. Their average driver is on duty approximately 35-
45 hours per week with the majority of the on-duty time split between
driving and unloading the trailer. A typical trip averages six stops. A
percentage of the trips make backhauls--both private and for-hire. The
average round trip is about 1,000 miles. A team usually delivers two
trailer loads per week, with time at home between most trips.
    MFT states that it operates on a routine weekly cycle. Each
workweek contains a regular subset of daily cycles dispatching and
returning long-, medium- and short-range trips. MFT advises that it has
a constant flow of outbound and inbound trucks that allow it to
continuously ship fresh-baked goods and return with backhauls of raw
materials and other for-hire loads. The routine cycles allow most of
the drivers to have regular schedules. Many of MFT's drivers are off
duty at least 48 consecutive hours every week while many others are off
duty at least 72 consecutive hours. MFT's tractors are equipped with
double-bunk sleepers in the event both drivers need or want to rest at
the same time. Drivers are allowed to make their own decisions about
when and where to take short rest breaks based on their personal needs
and preferences in conformance with current regulatory requirements.
MFT asserts that it takes safety, health and wellness seriously, and
hires well-qualified drivers who go through a comprehensive
orientation/new hire training program. MFT's trucks are equipped with
Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) which include electronic logs.
    MFT requests an exemption from the current regulations for its
delivery shipments and backhaul activity operations to eliminate the
requirement that SB time include a period of at least 8 but less that
10 consecutive hours in the SB and a separate period of at least 2 but
less than 10 consecutive hours either in the SB or off duty, or any
combination thereof (49 CFR 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1)). MFT proposes that
these team drivers be allowed to split SB time into two periods
totaling at least 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less
than 3 hours in length. The request would be limited to team drivers.
    MFT states that the activities of its team drivers involve both
driving and offloading product to its customers. The drivers average
approximately 53 hours per week on the road away from home.
Approximately 30 percent of this time is spent in the sleeper. MFT
contends that the experience of its drivers has demonstrated that
sleeping in a moving vehicle is more difficult than in a stopped truck.
According to MFT, having the flexibility to switch with a partner
allows each driver to take advantage of shorter time periods when they
may feel fatigued. Further, this will result in a more flexible work
pattern, allowing both drivers to perform warehouse functions together
(to reduce driver unloading time, improve maneuvering in the
warehouse), and improving personal and vehicular safety.
    MFT states that it is committed to maintaining its outstanding
safety record by focusing on continuous improvement, promoting
technologies to enhance safety, conducting thorough inspections and
having well-communicated policies in place to address both safety and
compliance-related topics. MFT identified some countermeasures it would
take to maintain safe operations if the exemption is granted. The
safeguards include, but are not limited to:
     Every week, all transportation operations shut down one
hour prior to sundown on Friday until one hour after sundown on
Saturday, resulting in an automatic minimum 26 hour off-duty home time
for all drivers in addition to two or three days home time during the
week;
     All tractors are equipped with speed limiters;
     Drivers use EOBRs to track their duty time and HOS
compliance;
     Drive time is reduced from 11 hours to 10 hours. Team
drivers are limited to 10 hours of driving prior to completing their
required 10 hours total SB.
     Behavior-based event data is monitored from the EOBR to
enhance safety measures already in place to help reduce the probability
of accidents on the road.
    MFT believes that by allowing its team drivers to exercise
flexibility in their SB requirements, the drivers would experience more
quality rest. To support its request for the exemption, MFT cited the
results of an FMCSA-sponsored study entitled ``Investigation of the
Effects of Split Sleep Schedules on Commercial Vehicle Driver Safety
and Health'' by Belenky (2012). The report noted ``. . . that when
consolidated nighttime sleep is not possible, split sleep is preferable
to consolidated daytime sleep.'' (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51200/51254/12-003-Split-Sleep_Investigation-of-the-Effects-of-Split-Sleep-Schedules-on-Commercial-Vehicle-Driver-Safety-and-Health-508.pdf.)
    A copy of MFT's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on MFT's application for an exemption from
certain provisions of the driver's HOS rules in 49 CFR part 395. The
Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on June
11, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at
the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The
Agency will consider to the extent practicable comments received in the
public docket after the closing date of the comment period.

    Issued on: April 28, 2014.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-10825 Filed 5-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60686-60687]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of
the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Dates and Times: The meeting will be held on November 18, 2015,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and November 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, and
C, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Patricio G. Garcia, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-6875, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On November 18, 2015, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations and vote on information regarding the premarket
approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics[supreg] Organ Care
SystemTM (OCS)--Heart, by TransMedics, Inc. The proposed
Indication for Use for the TransMedics[supreg] Organ Care
SystemTM (OCS)--Heart, as stated in the PMA, is as follows:
    The TransMedics[supreg] Organ Care SystemTM (OCS)--Heart
is a portable, ex vivo organ perfusion system intended to preserve a
donor heart in a near-normothermic and beating state from retrieval
until the eventual transplantation into a suitable recipient.
    On November 19, 2015, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the classification of the product code
``LKX'', and the associated device classification name, ``Device,
Thermal, Hemorrhoids''. The product code LKX represents a category of
devices intended to apply controlled cooling and conductive heating to
hemorrhoids. These devices are considered preamendments devices since
they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the
Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means
by which these devices perform these functions and their respective
Indications for Use (IFU)/Intended Use (IU) statements are as follows:
     Uses an aluminum probe that contains a temperature
sensitive element to regulate temperature within 2 degrees (between 37
and 46 degrees centigrade).
    [cir] IFU/IU: The apparatus is intended to apply controlled,
conductive heating to hemorrhoids.
     Uses a heat applicator inserted into the rectum,
applicator contains a battery

operated heater and a sensor which provides temperature control/
feedback.
    [cir] IFU/IU: Intended to provide temporary relief of the symptoms
of hemorrhoids through the application of mild heating.
     Uses speculum like plastic container containing liquid to
cool hemorrhoidal veins
    [cir] IFU/IU: Treatment of external hemorrhoids by applying cold
therapy (cryotherapy) directly to swollen hemorrhoidal veins.
    The committee will also discuss and make recommendations regarding
the classification of the product code ``LRL'', and the associated
device classification name, ``Cushion, Hemorrhoid''. The product code
LRL represents a category of devices intended to temporarily relieve
pain and pressure caused by hemorrhoids. These devices are considered
preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior
to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective.
Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these
functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are as follows:
     Uses an injection molded polypropylene copolymer plastic
seat attached to a toilet seat (the product is adjustable and is
available in round and elongated versions).
    [cir] IFU/IU: For the temporary relief from the pain and pressure
of hemorrhoids. The device is for external use only.
     Uses a cushion with an inflatable vinyl exterior and a
foam center. An air chamber, when filled, prevents the cushion from
compressing the foam. A urethane foam center adds comfort.
    [cir] IFU/IU: Intended for the home convalescent patient with
perineal discomfort.
     Uses a cushion that contains two internal molded
structures that conform to the patient's shape. Exerts ``slight''
pressure on hemorrhoid. IFU/IU not provided.
    The committee will also discuss and make recommendations regarding
the classification of the product code ``LKN'', and the associated
device classification name, ``Separator, automated, blood cell and
plasma, therapeutic''. The product code LKN represents a category of
centrifuge-type devices intended to separate blood components and
perform therapeutic plasma exchange for the management of serious
medical conditions in adults and children. These devices are considered
preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior
to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective.
Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these
functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are as follows:
     Utilizes a continuous flow centrifuge (max speed 3000 rpm)
to separate source blood from a subject into blood components.
    [cir] IFU/IU: May be used to perform therapeutic plasma exchange.
    [cir] IFU/IU: May be used to perform Red Blood Cell Exchange
procedures for the transfusion management of Sickle Cell Disease in
adults and children.
     Uses continuous flow access to a rotating centrifuge to
separate blood components.
    [cir] IFU/IU: May be used to harvest cellular components from the
blood of certain patients where the attending physician feels the
removal of such component may benefit the patient.
    [cir] IFU/IU: May be used to remove plasma components and/or fluid
selected by the attending physicians.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 10, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
on November 18, 2015, between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. and on
November 19, 2015, between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
November 2, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by November 3,
2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Artair Mallett at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 1, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-25466 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41239]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3989-000]

Michigan Wind 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Michigan Wind 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 27, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17591 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67239-67240]
[DOCID:fr28no07-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28883; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-106-AD;
Amendment 39-15267; AD 2007-24-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Model 400A Series
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Hawker Beechcraft Model 400A series airplanes. This AD requires
inspecting the galley cabinets to determine if a certain part number is
installed or if a certain size of wire already exists, and doing
related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results
from reports of undersized, and consequently unprotected, wire in the
galley cabinets. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of wire
insulation and consequent fire or smoke in the airplane cabin.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 2, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 2,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas
67206.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer,
Electrical Systems and Avionics, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (316)
946-4107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Hawker
Beechcraft Model 400A series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44813). That NPRM proposed to
require inspecting the galley cabinets to determine if a certain part
number is installed or if a certain size of wire already exists, and
doing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Change to Language in Final Rule

    We have removed the words ``if necessary'' that were inadvertently
added to paragraph (f) of the NPRM. The actions in paragraph (f) of
this AD are required.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the
change described previously. We have determined that this change will
neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 285 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 214 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The required inspection takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $17,120, or $80 per
airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-24-01 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation: Amendment 39-15267. Docket
No. FAA-2007-28883; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-106-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective January 2, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Hawker Beechcraft Model 400A series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Raytheon
Service Bulletin SB 25-3758, dated June 2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of undersized, and consequently
unprotected, wire in the galley cabinets. We are issuing this AD to
prevent overheating of wire insulation and consequent fire or smoke
in the airplane cabin.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 200 flight hours or 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the galley cabinets
to determine if Precision Pattern galley cabinet, part number (P/N)
20917, 20918, or 20921 is installed, or if 8 American Wire Gauge
(AWG) wire already exists; and, within 20 flight hours or 30 days
after the inspection, whichever occurs later, do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions. The actions must be
done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon
Service Bulletin SB 25-3758, dated June 2006.

    Note 1: Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 25-3758, dated June 2006,
refers to Raytheon Kit 128-3068-0001, Revision 3, dated April 18,
2006, as an additional source of service information for replacing
the undersized 10AWG wire with 8AWG wire in the gallery power
circuit.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 25-3758, dated
June 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Hawker
Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas 67206,
for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-22545 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58872-58876]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20944]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95870; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 5.34 Concerning Drill-Through Protection and Fat Finger Check

September 22, 2022.
    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 September 15, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
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 amend Rule 5.34. 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.34. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend its drill-through protection mechanism for
both simple and complex orders and its limit order fat finger check.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.34(a)(4) and (b)(6) to update
the drill-through protection mechanism for simple and complex orders,
respectively, to provide orders with additional execution
opportunities. Pursuant to the current simple drill-through protection,
if a buy (sell) order enters the Book at the conclusion of the opening
auction process or would execute or post to the Book at the time of
order entry, the System executes the order up to a buffer amount (the
Exchange determines the buffer amount on a class and premium basis)
above (below) the offer (bid) limit of the opening collar \3\ or the
national best bid (``NBO'') (national best offer (``NBB'')) that
existed at the time of order entry, respectively (the ``drill-through
price'').\4\ The System enters a limit order (as long as it has a Time-
in-Force of Day, Good-til-Cancelled or Good-til-Day) (or unexecuted
portion) not executed pursuant to the provision in the immediately
preceding sentence in the Book with a displayed equal to the drill-
through price.\5\ The order (or unexecuted portion) rests in the Book
at the drill-through price \6\ until the earlier to occur of its full
execution and the end of the duration of a number of consecutive time
periods (the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis the number
of periods, which may not exceed five, and the length of the time
period in milliseconds, which may not exceed three seconds).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 5.31(a) for the definition of Opening Collars.
    \4\ See Rule 5.34(a)(4)(A).
    \5\ See Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C).
    \6\ The proposed rule change adds ``at the drill-through price''
in the first sentence of subparagraph (a)(1)(C)(i), which is a
nonsubstantive change, as it reflects current functionality and is
stated in the introductory paragraph to Rule 5.34(a)(1)(C). The
proposed rule change merely includes this detail in the next portion
of the rule for additional clarity.
    \7\ See Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(i) to eliminate
the concept that there will be a maximum number of time periods and
proposes that the order (or unexecuted portion) will rest in the Book
at the drill-through price for the duration of consecutive time
periods.\8\ The proposed rule change makes conforming changes to
subparagraph (ii) by deleting references to ``the final period'' and
subparagraph (iv) by deleting the reference to ``any remaining time
period(s),'' as there will no longer be an Exchange-determined limited
number of time periods. Currently, as set forth in current subparagraph
(i), the drill-through mechanism will continue until the earlier to
occur of the order's full execution and the end of the duration of the
Exchange-determined number of time periods. The Exchange proposes to
amend subparagraph (iv) to describe when the drill-through process will
conclude. Specifically, proposed Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(iv) provides that
the order continues through the process described in subparagraph (ii)
(as proposed to be amended) until the earliest of the following to
occur: (a) the order fully executes; (b) the User cancels the order;
and (c) the order's limit price equals or is less than (if a buy order)
or greater than (if a sell order) the drill-through price at any time
during application of the drill-through mechanism, in which case the
order rests in the Book at its limit price, subject to a User's
instructions. In other words, the order will continue through
consecutive time periods until it fully executes (unless it is
cancelled by the User or reaches its limit price prior to full
execution), compared to today when the order will continue through
consecutive time periods until it fully executes or reaches the
Exchange-determined final time period, at which time the order would
route to PAR for manual handling (unless it is cancelled by the User or
reaches its limit price prior to full execution). The Exchange believes
eliminating the limit on the number of time periods may increase
execution opportunities for limit orders, which will still continue to
be bound by their limit prices and protected by the limit order fat
finger check.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange will continue to determine on a class-by-class
basis the length of the time periods in milliseconds, which may
continue to not exceed three seconds.
    \9\ If a limit price is ``too far away'' from the market, the
order will continue to be subject to the limit order fat finger
protection set forth in Rule 5.34(c)(1) and thus will still be
subject to protection against a potentially erroneous execution due
to an order pricing error upon submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change makes a similar change to the drill-
through protection mechanism for complex orders. Specifically, the
proposed rule change eliminates the concept that, for complex orders
for which the user does not establish a buffer amount (and instead the
Exchange-determined default buffer amount applies),\10\ there will be a
maximum number of time periods and proposes that the complex order (or
unexecuted portion) will rest in the Book at the drill-through price
for the duration of consecutive time periods.\11\ Currently, similar to
the drill-through protection mechanism for simple orders (as described
above), if a user enters a buy (sell) complex order into the System
(and does not enter its own buffer amount), the System executes the
order \12\ up to a buffer amount above (below) the Synthetic National
Best Offer (``SNBO'') (Synthetic National Best Bid (``SNBB'')) that
existed at the time of entry (the ``drill-through price'') or initiates
a complex order auction (``COA'') at the drill-through price if the
order would initiate a COA.\13\ For complex orders for which the user
did not establish a buffer amount, the complex order (or unexecuted
portion) rests in the COB with a displayed price equal to the drill-
through price until the earlier to occur of the complex order's full
execution and the end of the duration of a number of time periods (the
Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis the number of periods,
which may not exceed five, and the length of the time period in
milliseconds, which may not exceed three seconds). Following the end of
each period prior to the final period, the System adds (if a buy order)

or subtracts (if a sell order) one buffer amount to the drill-through
price displayed during the immediately preceding period (each new price
becomes the ``drill-through price''). The complex order (or unexecuted
portion) rests in the COB at that new drill-through price during the
subsequent period. Following the end of the final period, the System
cancels or routes to PAR for manual handling, subject to a User's
instructions (such as to cancel the order), the complex order (or
unexecuted portion) not executed during any time period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 5.34(b)(6)(A).
    \11\ See proposed Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B). The proposed rule change
has no impact on how the drill-through protection mechanism applies
to a complex order for which the inputting user establishes a buffer
amount, as in that situation, there is only a single time period
pursuant to the current rule (which will continue to be the case).
    \12\ Executions occur pursuant to Rule 5.33(e).
    \13\ Unlike the simple order drill-through protection mechanism,
the complex order drill-through protection mechanism permits users
to establish a buffer amount different than the Exchange-determined
default buffer amount. See Rule 5.34(b)(6)(A). A description of COAs
is located in Rule 5.33(d).
    \14\ See current Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B)(i) and (ii). As set forth in
current subparagraph (iv), if the complex order's limit price is
reached during the application of the drill-through mechanism, the
order will rest in the COB at its limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B)(i) and (ii) to
eliminate the concept that there will be a maximum number of time
periods and proposes that the order (or unexecuted portion) will rest
in the COB at the drill-through price for the duration of consecutive
time periods when a User does not establish its own buffer amount.\15\
The proposed rule change makes conforming changes to current
subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iv) (proposed subparagraphs (ii) and
(iii)) by deleting references to ``the final period'' and deleting the
reference to ``any remaining time period(s),'' as there will no longer
be an Exchange-determined limited number of time periods. Currently, as
set forth in current subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iv), if the
inputting User does not establish a buffer amount for the complex
order, the drill-through mechanism will continue until the earlier to
occur of the order's full execution and the end of the duration of the
Exchange-determined number of time periods (unless it is cancelled by
the User or reaches its limit price prior to full execution), at which
time the order would route to PAR for manual handling. The Exchange
proposes to add to the end of proposed subparagraph (ii) when the
drill-through process will conclude and what happens at that time for
complex orders for which the user did not establish a buffer amount.
Specifically, proposed Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B)(ii) provides that the complex
order continues through the process described in proposed subparagraph
(ii) until the earliest of the following to occur: (a) the complex
order fully executes; (b) the User cancels the order; and (c) the
complex order's limit price equals or is less than (if a buy order) or
greater than (if a sell order) the drill-through price at any time
during application of the drill-through mechanism, in which case the
complex order rests in the COB at its limit price, subject to a User's
instructions.\16\ In other words, a complex order for which the User
did not establish a buffer amount will continue through consecutive
time periods until it fully executes (or is cancelled or reaches its
limit price), compared to today when the complex order will continue
through consecutive time periods until it fully executes or reaches the
Exchange-determined final time period, at which time the order would
route to PAR for manual handling (unless otherwise cancelled by the
User or reaches its limit price, as described in current subparagraph
(iv)). The Exchange believes eliminating the limit on the number of
time periods may increase execution opportunities for limit orders,
which will still continue to be bound by their limit prices and
protected by the limit order fat finger check.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange will continue to determine on a class-by-class
basis the length of the time periods in milliseconds, which may
continue to not exceed three seconds.
    \16\ Proposed clause (c) is applicable today and located in
current subparagraph (iv). As described below, the proposed rule
change merely moves this provision from current subparagraph (iv) to
proposed subparagraph (ii).
    \17\ If a limit price is ``too far away'' from the market, the
order will continue to be subject to the limit order fat finger
protection set forth in Rule 5.34(c)(1) and thus will still be
subject to protection against a potentially erroneous execution due
to an order pricing error upon submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also makes certain nonsubstantive changes
to Rule 5.34(b)(6). Specifically, the proposed rule change moves all
provisions specific to the application of the drill-through mechanism
if the user establishes a buffer amount into Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B)(i) and
moves all provisions specific to the application of the drill-through
mechanism if the user does not establish a buffer amount into Rule
5.34(b)(6)(B)(ii). This includes incorporating into each of proposed
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) how the System handles a complex order if
its limit price equals or less than (if a buy order) or greater than
(if a sell order) the drill-through price, as described in current
subparagraph (iv). As a result, the proposed rule change deletes
current subparagraph (iv). Additionally, the proposed rule change moves
certain language regarding what happens if the SBBO changes during any
period, which applies to all complex orders subject to the drill-
through protection mechanism, regardless of whether the user input its
own buffer amount, to proposed subparagraph (iii) from current
subparagraph (ii) and correspondingly changes current subparagraph
(iii) to proposed subparagraph (iv). The proposed rule change makes a
nonsubstantive change to the beginning of proposed subparagraph (iii)
by changing ``However'' to ``Notwithstanding the above,'' as the
Exchange believes that phrase is more appropriate.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.34(c)(1)(D) to
add Limit-on-Close orders \18\ to the list of orders to which the limit
order fat finger check does not apply. Pursuant to the limit order fat
finger check, if a User submits a buy (sell) limit order to the System
with a price that is more than a buffer amount \19\ above (below) the
NBO (NBB) for simple orders or the SNBO (SNBB) for complex orders, the
System cancels or rejects the order.\20\ Currently, the limit order fat
finger check does not apply to bulk messages, stop-limit orders, or
Multi-Class Spread Orders.\21\ The Exchange proposes to also not apply
the limit order fat finger check to Limit-on-Close orders. The limit
order fat finger check applies to orders upon entry to the System.
However, the limit price of a Limit-on-Close order is intended to
relate to the price at the RTH market close, and thus may intentionally
be further away from the NBBO or SNBBO, as applicable, at the time the
order is entered. This may cause the order to be inadvertently rejected
pursuant to this check. The Exchange believes it is not appropriate for
this limit order to be subject to the fat finger check, as the check
may inadvertently cause rejections for orders with limit prices that
are intentionally ``far away'' from the market at the time of order
entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A ``Limit-on-Close'' or ``LOC'' order is a limit order that
may not execute on the Exchange until three minutes prior to Regular
Trading Hours (``RTH'') market close. At that time, the System
enters LOC orders into the Book in time sequence (based on the times
at which the System initially received them), where they may be
processed in accordance with Rule 5.32. The System cancels an LOC
order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute by the RTH
market close. Users may not designate an LOC order as All Sessions
or RTH and Curb. Users may not designate bulk messages as LOC. A
User may not designate an LOC order as Direct to PAR. See Rule
5.6(d) (definition of ``Limit-on-Close'' and ``LOC'' order).
    \19\ The Exchange determines a default buffer amount on a class-
by-class basis; however, a User may establish a higher or lower
amount than the Exchange default for a class.
    \20\ Rule 5.34(c)(1).
    \21\ Rule 5.34(c)(1)(D) and (E). The proposed rule change
deletes subparagraph (E) and moves Multi-Class Spread Orders to the
list of orders to which the check does not apply in subparagraph
(D). This is a nonsubstantive change and merely combines two current
provisions that exclude certain order types from the fat finger
check into a single provision.

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

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.\22\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \23\ 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) \24\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
eliminate the maximum number of time periods for which a simple or
complex order will rest in the Book or COB, respectively, during
application of the drill-through protection mechanism will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors, because
it will provide simple and complex orders with additional execution
opportunities. These orders may continue to be available on the Book or
COB, as applicable, for execution, at a wider range of prices, as
opposed to today when such orders are cancelled or routed to PAR for
manual handling after a specified number of time periods (depending on
the User's instructions and if the order does not reach its limit price
prior to the end of those time periods). The Exchange believes these
additional execution opportunities will benefit investors that submit
such orders and believes such orders will continue to receive
protection against potentially erroneous executions, as the limit order
fat finger check will continue to apply to them.
    The Exchange believes the proposed nonsubstantive rule changes to
the complex order drill-through protection mechanism will protect
investors and the public interest, because these changes improve the
organization of this rule's provisions by grouping all provisions that
apply when a User establishes its own buffer and all provisions that
apply when a User does not establish its own buffer, eliminating
potential confusion.
    Finally, the Exchange believes excluding Limit-on-Close orders from
the limit order fat finger check will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, protect investors, because it may reduce inadvertent
rejections of Limit-on-Close orders, which may be purposely priced
further away from the NBBO or SNBBO, as applicable, at the time of
entry, as their limit prices are intended to relate to price at the RTH
market close. Therefore, this proposed rule change may increase
execution opportunities for Users that submit Limit-on-Close orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the amended drill-
through protection mechanism (for both simple and complex orders) and
limit order fat finger check will continue to apply in the same manner
to orders of all Users and may lead to increased execution
opportunities. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act, because
the proposed rule change relates solely to Exchange risk controls and
how the Exchange handles orders subject to those risk controls.

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:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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 \25\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected]. Please include File
Number SR-CBOE-2022-046 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-2022-046. 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-
CBOE-2022-046 and should be submitted on or before October 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20944 Filed 9-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30394-30395]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Actions on Special Permit Applications

AGENCY: Pipeline And Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of actions on Special Permit Applications.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given of the actions on special permits
applications in (April to April 2013). The mode of transportation
involved are identified by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft. Application numbers prefixed by the letters EE represent
applications for Emergency Special Permits. It should be noted that
some of the sections cited were those in effect at the time certain
special permits were issued.

    Issued In Washington, DC, on May 15, 2013.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Nature of special
    S.P. No.         Applicant      Regulation(s)      permit thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Modification Special Permit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12531-M.........  Worthington      49 CFR           To modify the
                   Cylinder         173.302(a),      special permit to
                   Corporation,     173.304(a),      authorize a Class 8
                   Columbus, OH.    173.304(d),      packaging group I
                                    178.61(b),       material.
                                    178.61(f),
                                    178.61(g),
                                    178.61(i) and
                                    178.61(k).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       New Special Permit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15650-N.........  JL Shepherd &    49 CFR 173.416.  To authorize the
                   Associates,                       continued
                   San Fernando,                     transportation in
                   CA.                               commerce of certain
                                                     DOT Specification
                                                     20WC radioactive
                                                     material packagings
                                                     after October 1,
                                                     2008. (mode 1).
15723-N.........  Entegris         49 CFR 173.212;  To authorize the
                   Chaska, MN.      173.213;         transportation in
                                    173.240;         commerce of
                                    173.241;         Division 4.1 and
                                    176.83.          4.2 material in non-
                                                     specification
                                                     packaging. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4).
15725-N.........  Toray            49 CFR 173.225.  To authorize the one-
                   Composites                        time one-way
                   (America),                        transportation of
                   Tacoma, WA.                       organic peroxides
                                                     in packaging not
                                                     authorized by the
                                                     competent authority
                                                     approval. (mode 1).
15820-N.........  Korean Air,      49 CFR 172.101   To authorize the one-
                   Arlington, VA.   Column (9B),     time transportation
                                    172.204(c)(3),   in commerce of
                                    173.27, and      certain explosives
                                    175.30(a)(1).    that are forbidden
                                                     for transportation
                                                     by cargo only
                                                     aircraft. (mode 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Emergency Special Permit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15797-N.........  Veolia ES        49 CFR 172.320   To authorize the
                   Technical        and 173.56(b).   transportation of
                   Solutions,                        certain unapproved
                   L.L.C.,                           airbag modules by
                   Flanders, NJ.                     motor vehicle for
                                                     disposal. (mode 1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Modification Special Permit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14562-M.........  The Lite         49 CFR 173.304   To modify the
                   Cylinder         a(a)(1).         special permit to
                   Company,                          authorize larger
                   Franklin, TN.                     cylinders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      New Special Permit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15842-N.........  Department of    49 CFR 173.62..  To authorize the
                   Defense,                          transportation in
                   Scotts AFB, IL.                   commerce of
                                                     Rockets, UN0181 in
                                                     alternative
                                                     packaging (modes 1,
                                                     2, 3, 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denied

    10964-M Request by Kidde Aerospace & Defense Wilson, NC April 04,
2013. To modify the permit to authorize a rework procedure to allow
fire extinguishers which were ``steel stamped'' to e returned to within
original specifications.
    15746-N Request by Siex Burgos, Spain, April 25, 2013. To authorize
the transportation in commerce of Division 2.2 gases in cylinders
manufactured according to the European Directive for Transportable
Pressure Vessels.
    15834-N Request by Multistar Ind., Inc. Othello, WA April 01, 2013.
To authorize the transportation in commerce of certain portable tanks
and cargo tanks containing anhydrous ammonia that do not have
manufacturer's data reports required by 49 CFR 180.605(1).
    15821-N Request by Circor Instrumentation Technologies dba, Hoke
Incorporated Spartanburg, SC April 26, 2013. To authorize the
manufacture, marking, sale and use of non-DOT specification cylinders
manufactured from Hastelloy C-276 (ASTM B622) material.
[FR Doc. 2013-12005 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78422-78423]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71143]

Order Granting Application by Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange
Act From the Rule Filing Requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act With Respect to Certain Rules Incorporated by Reference

December 19, 2013.
    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') has
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
application for an exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with respect to
certain rules of other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') that
FINRA seeks to incorporate by reference. Section 36 of the Exchange Act
authorizes the Commission to conditionally or unconditionally exempt
any person, security, or transaction, or any class thereof, from any
provision of the Exchange Act or rule thereunder, if necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 2360 (Options) and FINRA Rule 2359 (Position and
Exercise Limits; Liquidations) incorporate by reference comparable
position and exercise limit rules of the options exchanges.
Specifically: (i) FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(B) incorporates position limits
for index options established by the exchange on which the option
trades; (ii) FINRA Rule 2360(b)(2) incorporates position and exercise
limits for FLEX Equity Options (as defined in FINRA Rule 2360(a)(16))
established by the exchange on which such FLEX Equity Options are
traded; and (iii) FINRA Rule 2359 incorporates position and exercise
limits for index warrants established by the exchange on which the
index warrant is listed.\3\ Thus, FINRA members comply with these FINRA
rules by complying with the relevant, incorporated exchange rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FINRA Rules 2359 and 2360; see also Letter from Robert
L.D. Colby, Chief Legal Officer, FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated October 10, 2013 (``FINRA Exemptive
Request''), at 1 n.1.
    \4\ FINRA has not previously sought an exemption from the
Commission pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act from the
rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act with
respect to these incorporations by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, if its request for an exemption is granted, FINRA
intends to propose further amendments to FINRA Rule 2360, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, to incorporate by reference other
rules of the options exchanges regarding position limits. Specifically,
with respect to standardized equity options, FINRA intends to propose
that FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3) be amended so that the FINRA position limit
will be the highest position limit established by an exchange on which
the option trades.\5\ With respect to conventional equity options,\6\
FINRA intends to propose that FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3) be amended so that
the position limit tiers for such options reflect the same tier
structure used in exchange rules for standardized equity options and,
for each tier, incorporate for conventional equity options the same
position limit that exchange rules establish for standardized equity
options in the equivalent tier.\7\ In addition, FINRA

Rule 2360(b)(4) sets forth exercise limits by referring to the position
limits in FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3).\8\ Accordingly, FINRA's anticipated
proposed rule change also would correspondingly raise exercise
limits.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See FINRA Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 1 n.2. Based
on the standardized equity option position limits currently imposed
by the option exchanges, this incorporation by reference would have
the immediate effect of eliminating FINRA's position limit for
standardized options on Standard and Poor's Depository Receipts
Trust (``SPY'') and increasing FINRA's position limit for
standardized options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund
(``EEM'') to 500,000 contracts.
    \6\ The term ``conventional option'' means any option contract
not issued, or subject to issuance, by the Options Clearing
Corporation. See FINRA Rule 2360(a)(9).
    \7\ See FINRA Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 1 n.2. This
aspect of FINRA's intended proposal would not change position limits
for conventional equity options, as FINRA's rule currently imposes
conventional equity option position limits that are the same as the
tiered limits for standardized equity options set forth in FINRA
Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(ii) through (v) for which the underlying security
qualifies or would be able to qualify. See FINRA Rule
2360(b)(3)(A)(viii). Currently, FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(viii) cross
references FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(ii) through (v) instead of
reproducing the language of those paragraphs setting forth the
position limit tiers. This aspect of FINRA's intended proposal would
amend FINRA's conventional equity option position limit rule to
replace that cross reference with the actual language setting forth
the position limit tiers.
    \8\ See FINRA Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 1 n.2.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the Exchange
Act,\10\ that the Commission grant it an exemption from the rule filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for changes to FINRA
Rule 2359 and FINRA Rule 2360, as amended by FINRA's intended proposal,
that are effected solely by virtue of a change to the corresponding
cross-referenced rules of the options exchanges. Specifically, FINRA
requests that it be permitted to incorporate by reference changes made
to each such options exchange rule without the need for FINRA to file
separately the same proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act.\11\ By virtue of these incorporations by reference,
the requirements applicable to FINRA members will change when the
applicable incorporated exchanges' rules change, without the need for
FINRA to file separately the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act.\12\ FINRA represents that the rules it seeks
to incorporate by reference into FINRA Rules 2359 and 2360 are
categories of exchange rules (rather than individual rules within a
category) that are not trading rules.\13\ FINRA has agreed to provide
written notice to its members whenever an exchange proposes a change to
its relevant, cross-referenced rule (or series of rules).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \11\ See FINRA Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 2.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. at 3. FINRA states that it will provide such notice on
its Web site where it posts its own proposed rule change filings as
required by Rule 19b-4(l). In addition, FINRA states that the Web
site posting will include a link to the location on the exchange's
Web site where the proposed rule change is posted. Id. at 3 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes this exemption is necessary and appropriate to
maintain the consistency between FINRA rules and the relevant
provisions of the exchanges' rules at all times, thus helping to ensure
identical regulation of members of FINRA that are also members of one
or more exchanges with respect to the incorporated provisions, as well
as helping to ensure that FINRA-only members are subject to consistent
regulation as members that are members of exchanges.\15\ Without such
an exemption, such members could be subject to two different
standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 2-3.
    \16\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions to other exchanges similar to
FINRA's request.\17\ In granting one such exemption in 2010, the
Commission repeated a prior, 2004 Commission statement that it would
consider similar future exemption requests from other SROs, provided
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For example, on behalf of their respective options markets,
BATS Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., and The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC incorporate, among other things, the position limit rules
of other exchanges. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61534 (February 18, 2010), 75 FR 8760 (February 25, 2010) (order
granting BATS Exchange, Inc. exemptive request relating to rules
incorporated by reference by the BATS Exchange Options Market rules)
(``BATS Options Market Order''); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR 39277, 39286 (July 2, 2012) (order
approving SR-BX-2012-030 and granting exemptive request relating to
rules incorporated by reference by the BX Options rules); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521, 14539-
40 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-
NASDAQ-2007-080, and granting exemptive request relating to rules
incorporated by reference by The NASDAQ Options Market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SRO wishing to incorporate rules of another SRO by
reference has submitted a written request for an order exempting it
from the requirement in Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file
proposed rule changes relating to the rules incorporated by reference,
has identified the applicable originating SRO(s), together with the
rules it wants to incorporate by reference, and otherwise has complied
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Commission's release
governing procedures for requesting exemptive orders pursuant to Rule
0-12 under the Exchange Act; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998) (Commission
Procedures for Filing Applications for Orders for Exemptive Relief
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rules such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); and
     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of another SRO.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 17 (citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR
8500 (February 24, 2004) (order granting exemptive request relating
to rules incorporated by reference by several SROs) (``2004
Order'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA has satisfied each of these
conditions. The Commission also believes that granting FINRA an
exemption from the rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act will promote efficient use of Commission and FINRA
resources by avoiding duplicative rule filings based on simultaneous
changes to identical rule text sought by more than one SRO.\20\ The
Commission therefore finds it appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors to exempt FINRA from the
rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act with
respect to the above-described rules it has incorporated, and intends
to incorporate, by reference. This exemption is conditioned upon FINRA
promptly providing written notice to its members whenever an exchange
changes a rule that FINRA has incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 17, 75 FR at
8761; see also 2004 Order, supra note 19, 69 FR at 8502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\21\ that FINRA is exempt from the rule filing requirements of
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect to changes to the
rules identified in its request that incorporate by reference certain
rules of the options exchanges,\22\ provided that FINRA promptly
provides written notice to its members whenever an exchange proposes to
change a rule that FINRA has incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \22\ See supra notes 3 through 9, and accompanying text.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30764 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P