[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13203-13209]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04231]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96973; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rules 11.9, 11.10, and 11.11

February, 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 15, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend Rule 11.9(a)(4) to provide that a change in position from either
sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to
sell short (or vice versa) will result in a loss of time priority if
made when a short sale circuit breaker pursuant to Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO is in effect. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule
11.10(e)(3) to provide that orders may be modified from either sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell
short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11(a) to clarify when the Exchange
may route orders with a short sale instruction when a short sale
circuit breaker pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is in effect.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9(a)(4) to reflect that if a
User \5\ changes the position of an order from sell long to sell short
exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) while a Regulation SHO Rule 201 \6\ short sale circuit breaker
(the ``SSCB'') \7\ is in effect, the change will result in a loss of
time priority. This proposed change is substantially similar to MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') Rule 2616 (discussed infra).\8\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.10(e)(3) to provide that an
order may be modified from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a
Replace Message. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
11.11(a) (Regulation SHO) to make clear that short sale orders \9\
entered with an order instruction to post to an away trading center
when an SSCB is in effect are eligible for routing by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.201; Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
    \7\ For any execution of a short sale order to occur on the
Exchange when a short sale price test restriction is in effect, the
price must be better than the national best bid (``NBB''), unless
the sell order was initially displayed by the System at a price
above then the current NBB or is market ``short exempt'' pursuant to
Regulation SHO. See Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(1).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93506 (November 2,
2021), 86 FR 61796 (November 8, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-35) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend
Exchange Rule 2616, Priority of Orders).
    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.200(a). The term ``short sale'' is defined as
``any sale of a security which the seller does not own or any sale
which is consummated by the delivery of a security borrowed by, or
for the account of, the seller.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Loss for Position Changes During an SSCB
    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.10(e)(3), certain order modifications
may be made via a Replace Message (i.e., other than changing a Limit
Order to a Market Order, only the price, Stop Price, the sell long
indicator, Short Sale instruction, Max Floor of an order with a Reserve
Quantity, and size of the order may be changed by a Replace Message),
while other modifications require that the existing order be cancelled,
and a new order be entered. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 11.9(a)(4),
when an order is cancelled or replaced in accordance with 11.10(e)(3),
such order will retain its priority only for certain types of
modifications (e.g., changing an order's position from sell long to
sell short or a decrease in the size of the order). Certain other types
of order modifications \10\ (e.g., a change in the order's price) will
otherwise receive a new timestamp and lose priority on the EDGX
Book.\11\ For example, if pursuant to Rule 11.10(e)(3) an order is
modified from sell long to sell short, such modification may be
accomplished via a Replace Message, and the System will, pursuant to
Rule 11.9(a)(4), allow such order to retain its original timestamp and
priority on the EDGX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 11.9(a)(4).
    \11\ See Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first proposes to amend Rule 11.10(e)(3) to provide
that an order's position may be modified from sell long to sell short
exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) through the use of a Replace Message. The Exchange notes that
Users complete a position modification from sell long to sell short
exempt (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) using the same functionality to mark an order as either sell
long or sell short under Rule 11.10(e)(3). The Exchange believes this
change will provide additional specificity to the rule and ensure the
rule uses terminology consistent with the description of Replace
Messages and their impact on an order's priority under Exchange Rule
11.9(a)(4) (discussed infra).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.9(a)(4) in order to
align the Rule text with how the System currently behaves when an SSCB
is in effect, and to provide clarification to Users that when an SSCB
is in effect that changing an order's position from either sell long to
sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) will instead result in such order receiving a new timestamp and
losing its original priority. The Exchange is not proposing to change
the timestamp for modifications from either sell long to sell short (or
vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) when an
SSCB is not in effect. Additionally, the Exchange is also proposing to
add language to Rule 11.9(a)(4) stating that a modification from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) is a type of order
modification that would retain time priority and would not receive a
new timestamp, regardless of whether an SSCB is in effect (discussed
infra).

    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Rule
11.9(a)(4) to provide that an order is being modified by a Replace
Message rather than cancelled and replaced with a new order. This
change is intended to provide that an order does not need to be
cancelled and replaced with a new order, but rather includes
modifications to orders via the use of a Replace Message. The proposed
changes to Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(4) are based on previously-approved
changes to MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a)(5), which is substantially similar
to Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(4).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the event that a User requests an order modification using a
Replace Message, the System will first determine whether the
modification is of a kind that may result in a loss of time priority in
order to determine how the modification will be handled by the System.
For example, as noted in Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(4), a modification to
the price of an order will cause the loss of time priority. Therefore,
in the event of a modification of the price of an order, the System
will first determine that the type of modification may result in a loss
of time priority and then handle the order accordingly by giving it a
new timestamp.\13\ Since an order modification from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) may result in a change in price of the order when an SSCB is in
effect, the Exchange immediately gives the order a new timestamp. As
previously discussed, a modification from sell long to sell short (or
vice versa) or a modification from sell short exempt to sell short (or
vice versa) requires the System to determine whether an order must be
re-priced to be compliant with the requirements of Regulation SHO. The
Exchange notes, however, that an order modification from sell long to
sell short exempt (or vice versa) does not require the System to
determine whether the order shall be re-priced as a result of the
modification, as both a sell long and a sell short exempt order may
execute at a more aggressive price than a sell short order when an SSCB
is in effect. Given that the System does not have to evaluate whether a
price change is required as part of an order modification from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa), this specific order
modification does not lose priority on the EDGX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Alternatively, as noted in Rule 11.9(a)(4) a modification
that involves a decrease in the size of the order will not cause the
loss of time priority. Therefore, in order to decrease the size of
the order, the System will first determine that the type of
modification will not result in a loss of time priority and will
handle the order in a completely different manner than it would if
the order would have resulted in a loss of time priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) and as such, these
order modifications can be processed without a loss of priority.
Routing Clarification for Orders That Will Post to an Away Trading
Center
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 11.11(a) in order to
codify that any sell short order that will post to an away Trading
Center \17\ will be routed when an SSCB is in effect. Given that sell
short orders that post to an away Trading Center are subjected to the
receiving Trading Center's processes for handling sell short orders in
compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO,\18\ the Exchange believes
the capability to route all sell short orders with the ability to post
to an away market center during an SSCB is appropriate and that
Exchange Rules should be amended to codify such functionality.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would provide Users with clarity as how
the Exchange will handle routable sell short orders when the SSCB is in
effect. For instance, Rule 11.11(a) explicitly states that the Post to
Away,\20\ RDOT,\21\ and ROOC \22\ routing options will post an order to
another Trading Center's book when the SSCB is in effect.\23\ While
Rule 11.11(a) provides that the Post to Away, RDOT, and ROOC routing
options may post an order to another Trading Center's book (which could
occur if the order is entered with a time-in-force (``TIF'') of
Day),\24\ the Exchange seeks to clarify that any routing strategy that
would post the remainder of the routed order to another Trading
Center's book is eligible for routing during an SSCB. Under Exchange
Rule 11.11(a), orders that include a Short Sale instruction and a Time-
in-Force of IOC \25\ that are not eligible for routing during an SSCB
will continue to be cancelled. For any other order that includes a
Short Sale instruction that is ineligible for routing due to an SSCB
being in effect, the Exchange will continue to post the unfilled
balance of the order to the EDGX Book, treat the order as if it
included a Book Only or Post Only instruction, and subject it to the
Re-Pricing Instructions to Comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, as
described in Rule 11.6(l)(2), unless the User has elected the order
Cancel Back as described in Rule 11.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 11.11(g)(11). Post to Away is a routing option
that routes the remainder of a routed order to and posts such order
on the order book of a destination on the System routing table as
specified by the User.
    \21\ See Rule 11.11(g)(5). RDOT is a routing option under which
an order checks the System for available shares and then is sent to
destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain
unexecuted after routing, they are sent to the NYSE and can be re-
routed by the NYSE. Any remainder will be posted to the NYSE, unless
otherwise instructed by the User.
    \22\ See Rule 11.11(g)(8). ROOC is a routing option for orders
that the entering firm wishes to designate for participation in the
opening, re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or
closing process of a primary listing market (Cboe BZX, NYSE, Nasdaq,
NYSE American, or NYSE Arca) if received before the opening/re-
opening/closing time of such market. If shares remain unexecuted
after attempting to execute in the opening, re-opening, or closing
process, they are either posted to the EDGX Book, executed, or
routed to destinations on the System routing table.
    \23\ The Exchange notes that orders routed pursuant to the Post
to Away routing option that include a short sale instruction are
identified as ``short'' and are subject to the receiving Trading
Center's processes for handling sell short orders in compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
79151 (October 25, 2016) 81 FR 75458 (October 31, 2016) (SR-
BatsEDGX-2016-54) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Amend EDGX Rule 11.11, Routing to Away
Trading Centers). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
88154 (February 7, 2020) 85 FR 8327 (February 13, 2020) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2020-006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Dark Routing Technique Routing
Option; To Eliminate References to the ROUD, ROUE, and ROUQ Routing
Options; and To Reflect Additional Routing Strategies for Which the
Exchange May Route Orders with a Short Sale Instruction).
    \24\ A ``Day Order'' refers to an order to buy or sell which, if
not executed, expires at the end of Regular Trading Hours. See
Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(2). Day Orders routed pursuant to the RDOT
routing option that include a short sale instruction are identified
as ``short'' and are subject to the receiving Trading Center's
processes for handling short sale orders in compliance with Rule 201
of Regulation SHO.
    \25\ An ``IOC Order'' refers to an order that is to be executed
in whole or in part as soon as such order is received and the
portion not executed immediately on the Exchange or another trading
center is treated as cancelled and is not posted to the EDGX Book.
See Exchange Rule 11.6(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\26\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \27\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \28\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change to Rule 11.10(e)(3) is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it aligns the rule text with the how the System currently
operates and helps to eliminate any potential confusion Users may have
regarding current Rule 11.10(e)(3). This proposed amendment will not
change existing System behavior and Users will have more certainty
about how orders may be modified, which is related to the proposed
changes to Rule 11.9(a)(4).
    Additionally, the proposed rule change to Rule 11.9(a)(4) is
designed to ensure all sell short orders are subjected to the
Exchange's process for ensuring that the order would not violate Rule
201(b)(1)(ii) of Regulation SHO during an SSCB. In order to verify the
displayed price of an order with a position modification from sell long
to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or
vice versa) during an SSCB, the System handles the modification as if a
price change would occur, even if the modification does not ultimately
result in a price change. If the System permitted such order
modifications to forego this process, no order modifications from sell
long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short exempt to sell short
(or vice versa) during an SSCB would result in a loss of time priority,
and as a result, certain sell short orders could be permitted to
display or execute at an impermissible price that would not comply with
Rule 201(b)(1)(ii). The Exchange's process is

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

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

    In addition, the proposed change to Rule 11.9(a)(4) will also
protect investors and the public interest because it continues to
promote compliance with Regulation SHO, including Regulation SHO's
order marking requirements \30\ and Users' compliance with any
applicable exemptions. Users are currently able to modify their order's
position using a Replace Message and the proposed rule change does not
alter a User's ability to do so. Users are required to mark their
orders properly upon entry and upon modification \31\ and the proposed
amendment to Rule 11.9(a)(4) does not change this obligation. As they
are required to do today, Users must also continue to ensure that their
order complies with any applicable exemption from Regulation SHO that
they seek to avail themselves of, not only at the time of entry, but
also at the time they change an order's position via a Replace
Message.\32\ The Exchange notes that it will continue to surveil for
compliance with Exchange Rules 11.5 and 11.10(a)(5) as well as
Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 242.200(g).
    \31\ See Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(5) (``Short Sales''). The rule
provides that ``[a]ll orders to sell short shall include a Short
Sale instruction, and if applicable, a Short Exempt instruction when
entered into the System. If an order includes a Short Exempt
instruction, the Exchange shall execute, display and/or route an
order without regard to any short sale price test restriction in
effect under Regulation SHO. The Exchange relies on the inclusion of
a Short Exempt instruction when handling such order, and thus, it is
the entering Member's responsibility, not the Exchange's
responsibility, to comply with the requirements of Regulation SHO
relating to including a Short Exempt instruction on an order.''
    \32\ A change in an order's price or position as well as an
increase in an order's size via a Replace Message implicitly results
in a new order. All Users must, therefore, ensure continued
compliance with the order market and locate requirements of
Regulation SHO (17 CFR 242.201) including compliance with Question
2.6 of the Commission's ``Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Regulation SHO'' available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions//rule201faq.htm (last accessed October 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to Rule 11.10(e)(3) is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it does not seek to change how order
modifications from either sell long to sell short exempt (or vice
versa) or sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) are
accomplished. Instead, the proposed change provides clarity to Users
that a position change from either sell long to sell short exempt (or
vice versa) or from sell short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) may
be accomplished through the use of a Replace Message and does not
require an order to be cancelled and a new order submitted in order to
modify an order's position to sell short exempt. The proposed change to
Rule 11.10(e)(3) will also provide continuity between Rule 11.10(e)(3)
and the proposed changes to Rule 11.9(a)(4), and as such are directly
intended to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and national market system.
    The proposed change to Rule 11.9(a)(4) removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because it addresses a limited scenario when a User modifies an
order's position using a Replace Message during an SSCB. The proposed
rule change specifically states that orders whose positions are
modified from either sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell
short exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message when
an SSCB is in effect will not lose priority as compared to other orders
on the EDGX Book. Further, the proposed rule change provides that order
modifications from sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) using
a Replace Message will not lose priority as compared to other orders on
the EDGX Book, regardless of whether an SSCB is in effect.
Additionally, the proposed change to Rule 11.9(a)(4) removes
impediments to and perfects a free and open market system because it is
designed to make clear to Users that orders may be modified using a
Replace Message without losing priority subject to the limitations
named in Rule 11.9(a)(4). This change does not amend the meaning or
operation of Rule 11.9(a)(4).
    The proposed changes to Rule 11.11(a) are designed to clarify that
any sell short order that will post to an away Trading Center will be
routed when an SSCB is in effect. In addition, providing Users the
ability to send sell short orders that will post to an away Trading
Center, and thus are routable when an SSCB is in effect provides them
additional flexibility with regard to the handling of their orders, and
may provide additional execution opportunities for those orders. Given
this, the proposed amendments to Rule 11.11(a) are directly targeted at
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system, as well as to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets.

    The proposed change to Rule 11.11(a) further promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and perfects a free and open market
system by identifying which orders containing routing instructions are
eligible to route and post to an away market center during an SSCB. As
all Trading Centers are required to comply with Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) of
Regulation SHO, a User can expect that an order routed from the
Exchange to an away market center will be treated similarly on the away
market center as it would on the Exchange during an SSCB. There is no
change to the meaning or operation of this rule, but rather an
amendment to make clear that an order that is eligible to post to an
away market may be routed during an SSCB.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the proposed rule changes
are not being proposed for competitive reasons. Rather, the proposed
amendment to Rule 11.10(e)(3) provides that modifications from sell
long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or from sell short exempt to
sell short (or vice versa) may be accomplished through the use of a
Replace Message. This proposed amendment will not change existing
System behavior and Users will have more certainty about how orders may
be modified, which is related to the proposed changes to Rule
11.9(a)(4). Order modifications from sell long to sell short (or vice
versa) use the same Replace Message functionality as a modification
from either sell long to sell short exempt (or vice versa) or from sell
short exempt to sell short (or vice versa), and amending Rule
11.10(e)(3) to describe this behavior for Users is directly related to
the Exchange's proposed changes to Rule 11.9(a)(4) and does not impose
a burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
    Additionally, the proposed amendments to Rule 11.9(a)(4) will
enhance the transparency of the rules by revising the rule text. By
revising the rule text to align with the current System behavior, Users
will be aware that if they modify their orders from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) or from sell short exempt to sell short (or vice
versa) and an SSCB is in effect, their orders will be given a new
timestamp and lose time priority. Users are free to consider this
proposed change as part of their overall experience with the Exchange,
which also includes execution quality and functionality offerings, when
making order routing decisions. Additionally, the Exchange notes that
the proposed rule change applies equally to all Users, and all Users'
orders are subject to the described functionality, regardless of their
size. Users may not opt-out of this System functionality.
    Furthermore, this loss of time priority for a position modification
would only occur when an SSCB is in effect and the Exchange is required
to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The impact of an order
modification from sell long to sell short (or vice versa) or sell short
exempt to sell short (or vice versa) using a Replace Message during an
SSCB with respect to loss of time priority is no different than when a
User seeks to increase the size of their order using a Replace Message
or when a User seeks to change the position of their order by
cancelling the existing order and entering a new order. In each
instance, the order will receive a new timestamp reflecting the time
the modification was made and the order would lose priority as compared
to other orders on the EDGX Book.
    Furthermore, the proposed change to Rule 11.9(a)(4) does not impose
any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act in that the proposed change does
not present a novel approach to sell short order handling. Indeed, the
proposed changes to Rule 11.9(a)(4) are consistent with a recently
approved amendment \33\ to MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a).\34\ Pursuant to
MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a), any position modification involving a change
from sell long to either sell short exempt or sell short (or vice
versa) will result in the order receiving a new timestamp and the order
losing priority, as compared to other orders resting on the book while
an SSCB is in effect. The Exchange's proposed Rule is also similar to
MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(a) in that modifications from sell long to sell
short (or vice versa) and modifications from sell short exempt to sell
short (or vice versa) will be subject to a loss of priority during an
SSCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Furthermore, the proposed change to Rule 11.11(a) does not impose
any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act as it makes clear that orders
that may post to away market centers will be routed during an SSCB.
Users will have the ability to take this factor into consideration when
determining which routing strategy to use when entering an order on the
Exchange and are able to consider this proposed change as part of their
overall

experience with the Exchange. If a User disfavors this proposed change
they are free to use a different routing strategy or submit an order
directly to an away market center. This proposed change is not being
proposed for competitive reasons, but rather to make clear that any
order eligible to be posted to an away market center will be routed
during an SSCB. As each market center is required to comply with Rule
201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange believes that any order eligible to
be posted to an away market center should be permitted to route, as the
order would be subject to the away market center's rules regarding
compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO upon posting.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

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

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

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-012.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-012. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-012, and should be
submitted on or before March 23, 2023.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04231 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 26961]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10844]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-10-2014-0057; FRL-9910-62-Region 10]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement;
Absorbent Technologies Site, Albany, OR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement for recovery of response costs incurred for
the Absorbent Technologies Site located at 140 Queen Avenue SW., and
2830 Ferry Street SW., in Albany, Oregon. Under this proposed
settlement, the settling parties are David L. Ellis, Pamela L. Ellis,
Farouk H. Al-Hadi, Lombard Foods, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and the
Bankruptcy Estate of Absorbent Technologies, Inc. The proposed
settlement requires the settling parties to pay $250,000 to the EPA
Hazardous Substance Superfund. Upon payment of this sum to EPA, the
settling parties will be released from their obligations for payments
to EPA for costs EPA incurred between October 15, 2013 and January 31,
2014. EPA has incurred additional response since January 31, 2014, and
this settlement does not provide the settling parties with a release
for claims for reimbursement of responses costs incurred after January
31, 2014. However, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
EPA agrees not to file claims against the Bankruptcy Estate of
Absorbent Technologies, Inc. in its bankruptcy proceeding.
    For 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the
EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement.
The EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw
its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate. The EPA's response to any comments received
will be available for public inspection at the U.S. EPA Region 10
Office, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

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

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the U.S. EPA Region 10 Office, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Candace Smith, Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. EPA Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop ORC-158, Seattle,
Washington 98101. Comments should reference Absorbent Technologies
Site, and should be addressed to Ted Yackulic, Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail Stop ORC-158, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Yackulic, Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Mail Stop ORC-158, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Absorbent Technologies Site is located
at 140 Queen Avenue SW and 2830 Ferry Street SW in Albany, Oregon.
Absorbent Technologies, Inc. operated a commercial agricultural
chemical formulating business at both properties within the Site.
Absorbent Technologies Inc.'s operations included the use and storage
of hazardous substances at both the Queen Property and the Ferry
Property. Before EPA became involved at the Site, Absorbent
Technologies, Inc. had filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition. On or
about October 11, 2013, Absorbent Technologies, Inc., ceased operations
at and essentially abandoned both the Queen Property and Ferry
Property. On October 15, 2013, the City of Albany requested that EPA
assist it in addressing threats posed by the Site. EPA initiated its
efforts on the Site on October 15, 2013, when it performed an initial
evaluation of conditions at the Queen Property. After evaluating
conditions at the Queen Property, EPA performed an emergency removal
action at the Queen Property between October 16 and October 20, 2013.
Absorbent Technologies, Inc. converted its bankruptcy proceeding from
Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 on October 23, 2013. The settling parties
conducted additional response actions at both the Queen Property and
Ferry Property between October 21, 2013 and January 31, 2014 within the
Site under the oversight of EPA. Between October 15, 2103 and January
31, 2014, EPA incurred approximately $399,151.14 performing or
overseeing the performance of response actions at the Site. The
settling parties include Absorbent Technologies Inc., the owners and
operators of the Queen Property and the owner of the Ferry Property.
David L. Ellis, Pamela L. Ellis, and Farouk H. Al-Hadi owned the Queen
Property during the time period covered by the settlement agreement.
Lombard Foods, Inc. owns the Ferry Property. Pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs, the settling
parties will pay EPA $250,000. In return for the payment of this
amount, EPA covenants not to sue the settling parties for response
costs it incurred between October 15, 2013 and January 31, 2014. EPA
continues to incur response costs at the Site, and EPA's covenant not
to sue does not include costs incurred by EPA after January 31, 2014.
In addition, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, EPA
agrees not to file claims against the Bankruptcy Estate of Absorbent
Technologies, Inc. in its bankruptcy proceeding.

    Dated: April 21, 2014.
Richard Albright,
Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-10844 Filed 5-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 10617]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6764-036]

BMB Enterprises, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the
application for amendment of license for the partially constructed but
not operating Sixmile Creek Project (FERC No. 6764) and has prepared an
environmental assessment (EA). The project is located on the Sixmile
Creek in Sanpete County, Utah. The project would occupy 10.86 acres of
federal lands administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service.
    The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed addition of new generating
capacity and concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The EA also may be viewed on the
Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance with eLibrary, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 60 days from the date of this
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.200(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at
http://ferc.gov.docs/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include
your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: February 7, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03367 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3900-3901]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55126; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fees for U.S. Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency Options

January 18, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 4, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') 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 substantially by the
Phlx. The Phlx submitted the proposed rule change under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ On
January 11, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \5\ The Phlx stipulated the implementation date to be January 8,
2007.
    \6\ See Form 19b-4 dated January 11, 2007 (``Amendment No. 1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to assess the same charges that are assessed on
index options on all U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options
(``FCOs''). The Exchange also proposes to delete the words ``dollar or
foreign currency based,'' which appear under the heading ``Summary of
Currency Option Charges'' and to make other related clarifying changes
to its Summary of Currency Option Charges.
    This proposal is scheduled to become effective upon the launch of
trading of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs by the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission recently issued a release approving a
proposed rule change filed by the Exchange to list certain U.S.
dollar-settled FCOs and to adopt rules and rule amendments to permit
the trading of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs on the Exchange's electronic
trading platform for options, Phlx XL. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54989 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78506 (December 29,
2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-34). The Exchange launched trading of U.S.
dollar-settled FCOs on January 8, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Phlx, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.html
.

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 purpose of this proposal is to adopt a fee schedule for U.S.
dollar-settled FCOs. The Exchange proposes to amend its Summary of
Index Option Charges fee schedule to include U.S. dollar-settled FCOs,
which are not index options but which have trading features similar to
index options, so that the Exchange will assess charges on these
products in the same manner that it charges for index options. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to list the symbols of U.S. dollar-
settled FCOs on its Summary of Index Option Charges. The Exchange
believes that the fees set forth in its current Summary of Index Option
Charges fee schedule reflect the value of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs as
new investment vehicles.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Summary of Currency Option
Charges, which will apply to the Exchange's currency products, but not
U.S. dollar-settled FCOs described above. The purpose of deleting the
words ``dollar or foreign currency based,'' which appear under the
heading ``Summary of Currency Option Charges'' is to avoid confusion
with U.S. dollar-settled FCOs as set forth in this proposal. The
Exchange proposes, therefore, to state on its Summary of Currency
Option Charges that U.S. dollar-settled FCOs are subject to a separate
fee schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \12\ For the purposes of calculating the 60-day abrogation
period, the Commission considers the proposed rule change to have
been filed on January 11, 2007, when Amendment No. 1 was filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before
February 16, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1181 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36182]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

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

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

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, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11379-M......................  ZF Passive Safety         173.301, 173.302a.......  To modify the special permit
                                Systems US Inc.                                     to authorize alternative
                                                                                safety control measures.
                                                                                (Mode 1).
11646-M......................  Aegis Chemical            172.203(a), 172.301(c),   To modify the special permit
                                Solutions, LLC.           177.834(h).               by authorizing additional
                                                                                hazardous materials. (Mode
                                                                                1).
11650-M......................  Autoliv Asp, Inc........  173.301(a)(1),            To modify the special permit
                                                          173.302(a).               to authorize cylinder weld
                                                                                studs. (Modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                5).
14467-M......................  Brenner Tank LLC........  172.203(a), 178.345-2,    To modify the special permit
                                                          178.346-2, 178.347-2,     to update to current DOT
                                                          178.348-2.                incorporations by reference
                                                                                in 49 CFR 171.7. (Mode 1).
20584-M......................  Battery Solutions, LLC..  173.185(f)(3),            To modify the special permit
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iii),       to authorize relief from the
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iv),        UN 38.3 testing and
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(v),         recordkeeping requirements
                                                          173.185(c)(3),            of Sec.   173.185(a). (Modes
                                                          173.185(f),               1, 2, 3).
                                                          173.185(f)(1),
                                                          173.185(a)(1).
20898-M......................  Rivian Automotive, LLC..  172.101(j), 173.185(a),   To modify the special permit
                                                          173.185(b)(3)(i),         to authorize additional
                                                          173.185(b)(3)(ii).        batteries and cargo vessel
                                                                                as a mode of transportation.
                                                                                (Modes 3, 4).
21008-M......................  Lucid USA, Inc..........  172.101(j), 173.220(d),   To modify the special permit
                                                          173.185(a)(1),            to authorize additional
                                                          173.185(b)(5).            cells within the batteries.
                                                                                (Modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
21063-M......................  Cobham Mission Systems    173.302(a)(1)...........  To modify the special permit
                                Orchard Park Inc.                                   to authorize alternative
                                                                                test pressures and refilling
                                                                                up to five times. (Modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-14528 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2408-2409]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-22-000]

Nevada Power Company; Notice Setting Due Date for Intervention in
Section 206 Proceeding

    On December 9, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos.
EL15-22-000, ER10-2475-006, ER10-2474-006, ER10-3246-003, ER13-520-002,
ER13-521-002, ER13-1441-002, ER13-1442-002, ER12-1626-003, ER13-1266-
003, ER13-1267-002, ER13-1268-002, ER13-1269-002, ER13-1270-002, ER13-
1271-002, ER13-1272-002, ER13-1273-002, and ER10-2605-006, pursuant to
section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012),
instituting an investigation concerning the justness and reasonableness
of the Berkshire MBR Sellers' and their affiliates' market-based rates
in the PacifiCorp-East, PacifiCorp-West, Idaho Power, and NorthWestern
balancing authority areas. Nevada Power Company, 149 FERC ] 61,219
(2014). On January 5, 2015, the Commission issued a notice establishing
a refund effective date.
    Any interested person desiring to become a party in the above-
referenced proceeding must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) by 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on January 20, 2015. The Commission encourages
electronic submission of interventions in lieu of paper using the
``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original hard
copy of the intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00570 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59226-59227]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67893; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

 September 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 12, 2012, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a Manual Appointment Change
Request Fee (the ``Fee'') of $50.00 each time a

Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') requests a change in the classes to
which said TPH is appointed to act as a Market-Maker. This Fee serves
to pay for the labor involved in processing such requests. Beginning on
September 4, 2012, TPHs became responsible for maintaining their own
Market-Maker appointments via the Exchange's online appointments
system. TPHs received prior notification of this change.\3\ Because
TPHs now maintain their own Market-Maker appointments and the Exchange
no longer processes requests to change the classes to which TPHs are
appointed to act as Market-Makers, the Exchange hereby proposes to
eliminate the Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG12-114 (August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act5, which provides that Exchange rules may provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. The proposed change is reasonable because TPHs will no
longer have to pay a fee for changing their Market-Maker appointments,
and is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR [sic] 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-089 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-089. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices
of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2012-089, and should be submitted on or before October 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23632 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4855-4856]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0973]

Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2013 minimum random
drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers. The Coast Guard
will continue to closely monitor drug test reporting to ensure the
quality of the information. The Coast Guard may set the rate back up to
50 percent of covered crewmembers if the positive rate for random drug
tests is greater than 1 percent for any one year, or if the quality of
data is not sufficient to accurately assess the positive rate.

DATES: The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1,
2013, through December 31, 2013. Marine employers must submit their
2013 Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March
15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Annual MIS reports may be submitted by mail to Commandant
(CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., STOP
7561, Washington, DC 20593-7581 or by electronic submission to the
following Internet address: http://homeport.uscg.mil/Drugtestreports.
    The docket for this notice is available for inspection or copying
at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2009-0973 in the ``Search'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Mr. Robert C. Schoening, Drug and Alcohol Program
Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 46 CFR 16.230, the Coast Guard
requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for
covered crewmembers. Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500
to collect and maintain a record of drug testing program data for each
calendar year and submit this data by March 15 of the following year to
the Coast Guard in an annual Management Information System (MIS)
report. Marine employers may either submit their own MIS reports or
have a consortium or other employer representative submit the data in a
consolidated MIS report.

    The Coast Guard annually sets the minimum drug testing rate for the
coming year. The purpose of setting a minimum random drug testing rate
is to assist the Coast Guard in analyzing its current approach for
deterring and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime industry,
and to encourage employers to maintain a drug-free workplace with the
incentive of a reduced testing rate (and associated reduced costs). In
every year of testing through 2012, the random testing rate has been 50
percent. In accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(f)(2), the Commandant may
lower this rate to 25 percent if, for 2 consecutive years, the positive
drug test rate is less than 1 percent.
    MIS data indicates that the positive rate for random drug tests was
0.77 percent in 2011 and 0.74 percent in 2010. The Commandant is
exercising his discretion to reduce the required random drug testing
rate for calendar year 2013 to 25 percent of covered crewmembers. The
Commandant may reset the rate to 50 percent of covered crewmembers if
the positive rate for random drug tests is greater than 1 percent for
any one year, or if the quality of data is not sufficient to accurately
assess the positive rate.
    The Coast Guard commends marine employers and mariners for their
efforts to create a drug-free workplace and encourages marine employers
and drug testing service providers to continue to submit accurate,
complete and timely MIS data.
    This notice is issued under authority of 46 CFR 16.230(f), which
requires the Coast Guard to publish the results of random drug testing
for the previous calendar year's MIS data and the minimum annual
percentage rate for random drug testing for the next calendar year, and
5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-
5PC).
[FR Doc. 2013-01236 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57112-57113]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1601]

Custom Device Exemption; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Custom Device Exemption.'' FDA
has developed this document to provide guidance to industry and FDA
staff about implementation of the custom device exemption contained in
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). The intent of this
guidance is to define terms used in the custom device exemption,
explain how to interpret the ``five units per year of a particular
device type'' language contained in the FD&C Act, describe information
that FDA proposes manufacturers should submit in the custom device
annual report, and provide recommendations on how to submit an annual
report for devices distributed under the custom device exemption.

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

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Custom Device Exemption'' to the Office of the Center Director,
Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Premarket and Labeling
Compliance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The custom device exemption is set forth at section 520(b) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(b)). A custom device is in a narrow category
of devices for which, because of the rarity of a patient's medical
condition or a physician's special need, compliance

with premarket review regulations and performance standards under
sections 514 and 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360d and 360e) would be
impractical.
    Effective on July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act (FDASIA) implemented changes to the custom device
exemption contained in section 520(b) of the FD&C Act. The new
provision amended the existing custom device exemption and introduced
new concepts and procedures applicable to custom devices, addressing,
among other things:
     Devices created or modified in order to comply with the
order of an individual physician or dentist;
     the potential for multiple units of a device type not to
exceed five units per year qualifying for the custom device exemption;
and
     annual reporting requirements by the manufacturer to FDA
about devices manufactured and distributed under section 520(b) of the
FD&C Act.
    Under FDASIA, devices that qualify for the custom device exemption
were clarified to include no more than ``five units per year of a
particular device type'' that otherwise meet all the requirements
necessary to qualify for the custom device exemption. In this guidance,
FDA interprets the five units in terms of five new custom devices per
year (i.e., five new patients for the patient-focused custom device or
five new physicians for the physician-focused custom device, assuming
all other required elements for the custom device exemption are
satisfied). The five-unit limitation includes all devices provided by a
manufacturer to, and remaining in the possession of, the ordering
physician and/or patient.
    The guidance defines terms used in the custom device exemption,
explains how FDA plans to interpret the term ``five units per year of a
particular device type'' set forth in section 520(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C
Act, describes what information manufacturers should submit in a custom
device annual report to FDA, and provides guidance on how to submit an
annual report for devices distributed under the custom device
exemption.
    On January 14, 2014, FDA issued the draft guidance entitled
``Custom Device Exemption'' (Ref. 1). The Agency has reviewed the
comments submitted for the draft guidance and has incorporated many of
the recommendations in this final guidance.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on custom devices. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all Center for
Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at
http://www.regulations.gov. To receive ``Custom Device Exemption,'' you
may send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1820 to
identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct or sponsor. This draft guidance also refers to previously
approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These
collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 814,
subparts B and E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231;
the collections of information in 21 part 812 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 part
807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120;
and the collections of custom device annual reporting have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0767.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). Identify comments with
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

VI. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES), and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has
verified the Web site address, but we are not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the
Federal Register.)
    1. The FDA draft guidance entitled ``Custom Device Exemption,''
available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM380497.pdf.

    Dated: September 18, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-22683 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P