Chlorine Dioxide

Incident Reports

Case 4023

Jonathan Chen, Ph.D.

Office of Pesticide Programs

Antimicrobials Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

August 1, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-3" \u  0.0	INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc122342428 \h  3

1.0 	INCIDENT REPORT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTH EFFECTS	  PAGEREF
_Toc122342429 \h  3

1.1 	OPP(s Incident Data System (IDS)	  PAGEREF _Toc122342430 \h  4

1.2 	 Poison Control Center (1993 – 2003)	  PAGEREF _Toc122342431 \h
4

1.3 	California Data - 1982 through 2003	  PAGEREF _Toc122342432 \h  4

1.4 	National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN)	  PAGEREF
_Toc122342433 \h  4

1.5 	Incident Reports / Epidemiological Studies Published in Scientific
Literature.	  PAGEREF _Toc122342434 \h  4

2.0	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION	5

3.0	REFERENCE	12

0.0	INTRODUCTION tc \l1 "0.0	INTRODUCTION

The chemical chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is used as a biocide in bleaching
cellulose, paper and pulp, flour, leather, fats and oils, textiles, and
beeswax; in purification of water; for taste and odor control of water;
in cleaning and detanning leather; in the manufacturing of chloride
salts; as an oxidizing agent; as a bactericide, antiseptic and
deodorizer (The Merck Index, 2001).  The purpose of this chapter is to
review the evidence of health effects in humans resulting from exposure
to chlorine dioxide.

Two approaches are used in this section:

The potential health effects of chlorine dioxide in humans, reported as
incident reports from different sources, are summarized.

A literature search of chronic health effects associated with chlorine
dioxide exposure, including results of epidemiological studies, is
summarized.

1.0 	INCIDENT REPORT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTH EFFECTS

The following databases have been consulted for the poisoning incident
data

OPP Incident Data System (IDS) - The Incident Data System of The Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
contains reports of incidents from various sources, including
registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies,
and individual consumers, submitted to OPP since 1992.  Reports
submitted to the Incident Data System represent anecdotal reports or
allegations only, unless otherwise stated.  Typically no conclusions can
be drawn implicating the pesticide as a cause of any of the reported
health effects. Nevertheless, with enough cases and/or enough
documentation, risk mitigation measures may be suggested.

Poison Control Centers - as a result of a data purchase by EPA, OPP
received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through 2003
for all pesticides.  Most of the national Poison Control Centers (PCCs)
participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic Exposure
Surveillance System, which obtains data from about 65-70 centers at
hospitals and universities.  PCCs provide telephone consultation for
individuals and health care providers on suspected poisonings, involving
drugs, household products, pesticides, etc.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation - California has collected
uniform data on suspected pesticide poisonings since 1982.  Physicians
are required, by statute, to report to their local health officer all
occurrences of illness suspected of being related to exposure to
pesticides.  The majority of the incidents involve workers.  Information
on exposure (worker activity), type of illness (systemic, eye, skin,
eye/skin and respiratory), likelihood of a causal relationship, and
number of days off work and in the hospital are provided.

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) - NPTN is a
toll-free information service supported by OPP.  A ranking of the top
200 active ingredients for which telephone calls were received during
calendar years 1984-1991, inclusive, has been prepared.  The total
number of calls was tabulated for the categories human incidents, animal
incidents, calls for information, and others.

Published Incident Reports - Some incident reports associated with
chlorine dioxide related human health hazards are published in the
scientific literature.

1.1 	OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS) tc \l2 "1.1 	OPPs Incident Data
System (IDS)

There are two minor incidents have been reported that are associated
with chlorine dioxide in the OPP incident data system.  Inhalation
exposure is the primary route of exposure.  Irritation type reactions
and headache are the primary concerns that have been reported.

1.2 	 Poison Control Center - 1993 through 2003 tc \l2 "1.2 	 Poison
Control Center

There are no chlorine dioxide specific incidents that have been
reported.

1.3 	California Data - 1982 through 2003 tc \l2 "1.3 	California Data -
1982 through 2003

There are 20 incidents that have been reported in the California
Pesticide Surveillance Program Database (1982-2003) as possibly or
probably chlorine dioxide related (summarized in Table 1).   Eleven of
these reported incidences are not agriculturally related.
Lightheadedness, headache, nausea, coughing, throat irritation, sinus
tightness, difficulty breathing and chest tightness are the common
symptoms reported in these incidents.  Table 2 presents the types of
illnesses reported by year.  Table 3 gives the total number of workers
that took time off work as a result of their illness and how many were
hospitalized and for how long.

1.4 	National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) tc \l2 "1.4
National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN)

There is no incident reported in the NPTN database related to chlorine
dioxide.

1.5 	Incident Reports / Epidemiological Studies Published in Scientific
Literature. tc \l2 "1.5 	Incident Reports Associated with Toxic Effects
of phenols Published in Scientific Literature.

The health effects associated with chlorine dioxide are studied in
following epidemiological studies.

A study was carried out in 9 Italian towns between October 1999 and
September 2000 that aimed to evaluate the association, if any, between
chlorite and chlorate in drinking water and both preterm delivery and
babies that are small for their gestational age at term (term-SGA).
While controlling for numerous possible confounding factors, the study
showed that there is an association between babies that are small for
their gestational age at term and chlorite in drinking water when the
chlorite levels are greater than 200 µg/L and there is high exposure
from both ingestion and inhalation (from daily showering and bathing).
Although as the authors point out, this association may be due to a
different disinfection byproduct produced by chlorine dioxide or to a
not yet identified confounding factor, there is no evidence indicate
chlorine dioxide exposure relate to term-SGA .  Chlorine dioxide
treatment is widely used in Italy. (Aggazzotti et al. 2003).

A study was carried out to investigate the possible association between
maternal periconceptional exposure to public drinking water chlorination
byproducts and the incidence of congenital cardiac defects in a Swedish
county between January 1, 1982 and December 31, 1996.  Information in
Swedish health registers was linked with information on municipal
drinking water composition.  Individual data on drinking water
composition was obtained for 58,669 women.  Among the infants born to
these women, 753 had a cardiac defect.  Chlorine dioxide use in
disinfection was found to be an independent risk factor for cardiac
defect and so was increasing trihalomethane concentrations (THM
concentrations higher than 10 µg/L were statistically significantly
associated with cardiac defects).  The study concluded that the
individual risk for cardiac defect caused by chlorine dioxide is small,
but because a large population is exposed to public drinking water,
“the attributable risk for cardiac defects may not be negligible”
(Cedergren et al., 2002).

An epidemiologic study of 198 persons exposed for 12 weeks to drinking
water that had been disinfected with chlorine dioxide was conducted in a
rural village.  A control group of 118 nonexposed persons was also
studied.  Chlorite ions in the water averaged 5.28 ppm during the study
period.  Based on water consumption information, the mean chlorite dose
received was 10.3 mg/day and the range 0-39.4 mg/day.  Statistical
analysis of multiple hematologic and serum clinical chemistry
measurements failed to identify any significant adverse health effects
related to chlorine dioxide exposure (Michael et al., 1981).

A study of the blood chemistry parameters of 20 renal dialysis patients
was conducted after it was found out that a local water district had
introduced chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant for 12 months without
informing the renal dialysis clinic.  Renal dialysis patients are
considered to be more sensitive to chemicals in tap water than the
general population because not only are they in a compromised state of
health, but while the average population consumes 1-2 liters of tap
water per day, about 100-125 liters of tap water is used during the
process of renal dialysis.  However, the chlorination products measured
at the clinic after it had purified the water used in the preparation of
the dialysate consisted only of 0.02-0.08 mg/L chlorite.  No evidence of
chlorine dioxide induced anemia was found and no other clinically
significant effects were observed (Ames and Stratton, 1987).

2.0	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION tc \l1 "3.0	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

There are incidents associated with chlorine dioxide exposure reported
in both the OPP Incident Data System and the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation Database (1982-2003).  Among the reported incidents
in these databases, inhalation is the primary route of exposure.
Irritation is the primary reported symptom.  There is no significant
health effects associated with chlorine dioxide exposure in published
scientific epidemiological studies.

Table 1.  Case Reports Received by the California Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program, 1982 – 2003 in Which Health Effects Were
Definitely, Probably, or Possibly Attributed to Exposure to Chlorine
Dioxide

Year Case Identified	Case Number(a)	Relationship(b)	Days Lost from Work
/ Days Hospitalized (c)	Ag / Non-Ag (d)	Medical Description (e)
Narrative Description

1990	848	Probable	4 / 0	Non-Ag

SMELLED CHLORINE DEVELOPED BREATHING DIFICULTY, HEADACHE, COUGH,
DIZZINESS. DIAGNOSED BRONCHIAL IRRITATION. SAFETY EQUIPMENT NOT
REPORTED. CHLORINE DIOXIDE DELIVERY SYSTEM DID NOT WORK CORRECTLY THAT
DAY.

1990	1478	Probable	0 / 0	Non-Ag

WORKER APPLYING MATERIAL FROM SPRAY BOTTLE GOT FUMES IN EYES AND LUNGS
CAUSING BURNING. SHE ALSO SUFFERED FROM COUGHING AND SHORTNESS OF
BREATH. SHE WORE ONLY RUBBER GLOVES FOR PROTECTION. NOV ISSUED FOR USE
OF AN UNREGISTERED PRODUCT AND FOR NO TRAINING

1990	2474	Probable	0 / 0	Non-Ag

DISINFECTANT USED IN A MEAT PACKING FACILITY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME
CAUSED A FEMALE EMPLOYEE TO DEVELOP SOB, LIGHT HEADEDNESS AND THROAT
IRRITATION FROM CONSTANT EXPOSURE DUE TO INHALATION. EMPLOYEE WEARING
PROPER CLOTHING AND RUBBER GLOVES. DIAGNOSIS-CHE

1991	2230	Possible	UN / 0	Non-Ag	MODERATE CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA OF BOTH
EYES.	WORKER WAS SORTING TOMATOES ON A SORTING BELT.  WATER FROM THE
WATER BATH WAS SPLASHING ONTO THE SORTING BELT AND SOME SPLASHED UP INTO
HER EYES.  SHE IMMEDIATELY FLUSHED HER EYES OUT AND PUT EYE DROPS IN
THEM.  SHE THEN SOUGHT MEDICAL ATTENTION.

1991	2574	Probable	0 / 0	Ag	BRONCHOSPASM.	SEE 91-2573.

1991	2575	Probable	0 / 0	Ag	PNEUMONITIS, VOMITING, COUGHING.	SEE
91-2573.

Table 1.  Case Reports Received by the California Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program, 1982 – 2003 in Which Health Effects Were
Definitely, Probably, or Possibly Attributed to Exposure to Chlorine
Dioxide (Continued)

Year Case Identified	Case Number (a)	Relationship (b)	Days Lost from
Work / Days Hospitalized (c)	Ag / Non-Ag (d)	Medical Description (e)
Narrative Description

1994	847	Possible	0 / 0	Ag	RESPIRATORY IRRITATION, COUGHING, DIZZINESS,
SLIGHT BACK AND CHEST DISCOMFORT.	FOUR WORKERS NOTICED AN ODOR WHILE
INSPECTING ONIONS ON A CONVEYOR BELT AND BECAME ILL.  THE ONIONS ARE
PRESSURE WASHED WITH CHLORINATED WATER UNDER A SHIELDED HOOD.  SEE ALSO
94-848 TO 850.

1994	848	Possible	0 / 0	Ag	THROAT IRRITATION, DRY COUGH.	SEE 94-847.

1994	849	Possible	0 / 0	Ag	COUGHING, THROAT IRRITATION, NAUSEA.	SEE
94-847.

1994	850	Possible	0 / 0	Ag	COUGHING, MILD RHINORRHEA, NAUSEA.	SEE
94-847.

1994	930	Possible	0 / 0	Non-Ag	COUGHING, THROAT IRRITATION, SHORTNESS OF
BREATH, WATERING EYES.	WORKER SUFFERED RESPIRATORY AND EYE PROBLEMS
WHILE INSPECTING ONIONS ON A CONVEYOR BELT.  THE ONIONS HAD BEEN WASHED
IN A CHLORINATED SOLUTION.  SHE SOUGHT MEDICAL ATTENTION FOUR DAYS
LATER.

1994	1030	Possible	0 / 0	Non-Ag	BURNING EYES, COUGHING, NAUSEA,
HEADACHE.	WORKER WAS INSPECTING ONIONS AND WAS EXPOSED TO FUMES FROM THE
CHLORINE WASH.

Table 1.  Case Reports Received by the California Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program, 1982 – 2003 in Which Health Effects Were
Definitely, Probably, or Possibly Attributed to Exposure to Chlorine
Dioxide (Continued)

Year Case Identified	Case Number (a)	Relationship (b)	Days Lost from
Work / Days Hospitalized (c)	Ag / Non-Ag (d)	Medical Description (e)
Narrative Description

1997	237	Probable	UN / 0	Ag	CHEST TIGHTNESS.	A CHLORINE DIOXIDE PIPE
EXPLODED IN A CARROT PACKING PLANT.  FIFTEEN FEET AWAY, A WORKER
CLEANING A TANK SMELLED CHLORINE AND JUMPED FROM THE TANK.  THE JUMP
INJURED HIS LEG AND BROKE HIS FOOT.  HE ALSO COMPLAINED OF TRANSITORY
CHEST TIGHTNESS.

1997	1040	Possible	4 / 0	Non-Ag	RESPIRATORY IRRITATION, COUGHING, EYE
IRRITATION.	CHLORINE DIOXIDE WAS BEING ADDED TO WATER IN A TANK WHILE AN
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING A CANNING MACHINE.  SHE WAS EXPOSED TO THE FUMES
AND DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS.  SHE SOUGHT MEDICAL ATTENTION 4 DAYS LATER.

1997	1096	Probable	0 / 0	Non-Ag	SORE THROAT, STOMACH ACHE, CONSTIPATION,
PAIN AND TIGHTNESS IN THE CHEST, COUGHING.	CHLORINE DIOXIDE WAS BEING
USED AS A SANITIZING RINSE ON PACKING PLANT EQUIPMENT, WHEN A POWER LOSS
OCCURRED.  THIS SHUT OFF A VENTING FAN SO THE CHLORINE DIOXIDE VENTED
INTO A ROOM OF WORKERS.  SEE 97-1103 AND 1104.

1997	1103	Probable	0 / 0	Non-Ag	WHEEZING, COUGHING.	SEE 97-1096.  THREE
WORKERS DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS AND SOUGHT MEDICAL ATTENTION.

1997	1104	Probable	0 / 0	Non-Ag	SORE THROAT, COUGHING, EYE IRRITATION,
NAUSEA.	SEE 97-1096.

2001	354	Possible	0 / 0	Ag	COUGHING, HEADACHE, VOMITING.	TWO PROCESSING
PLANT EMPLOYEES DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS WHILE WORKING ON THE STRAWBERRY
PROCESSING LINE. THIS EMPLOYEE SORTED STRAWBERRIES ON A CONVEYOR BELT.
LAB REPORTS SHOWED THE WASH WATER CHLORINE LEVELS A LITTLE HIGH 5 TIMES
THAT DAY. SEE 2001-355.

Table 1.  Case Reports Received by the California Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program, 1982 – 2003 in Which Health Effects Were
Definitely, Probably, or Possibly Attributed to Exposure to Chlorine
Dioxide (Continued)

Year Case Identified	Case Number (a)	Relationship (b)	Days Lost from
Work / Days Hospitalized (c)	Ag / Non-Ag (d)	Medical Description (e)
Narrative Description

2001	355	Probable	0 / 0	Ag	COUGHING, CHEST PAIN, SORE THROAT, HEADACHE.
SEE 2001-354. THIS EMPLOYEE DUMPED CRATES OF STRAWBERRIES INTO THE
CHLORINATED WASH TANK WATER.

2001	937	Possible	UN / 0	Non-Ag	SORE THROAT, DRY AND IRRITATED NOSE,
COUGHING, NAUSEA, LIGHTHEADEDNESS.	A MAILROOM CLERK DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS
WHEN A TECHNICIAN DISINFECTED THE VENTILATION SYSTEM. THE NEXT DAY, SHE
REPORTED HER SYMPTOMS TO THE SUPERVISOR WHO SENT HER FOR A MEDICAL
EVALUATION. SHE NO LONGER WORKS AT THE COMPANY AND COULD NOT BE LOCATED.

Note:

(a) Case numbers are assigned sequentially from 1 each year.

(b) A relationship of ‘Definite’ indicates that both physical and
medical evidence document exposure and consequent health effects.
‘Probable’ relationship indicates that limited or circumstantial
evidence supports a relationship to pesticide exposure.

      ‘Possible’ relationship indicates that evidence neither
supports nor contradicts a relationship		.

(c) Counts full days only. An entry of ‘Indefinite’ indicates the
event occurred, but the time period is not known.	UN = unkown.

(d) The abbreviation 'Ag' stands for 'Agricultural' and indicates
pesticide use intended to contribute to production of an agricultural
 commodity. All other situations are designated 'Non-Ag'.

(e) The medical description field was added to the database in 1991.
Table 2: Cases Due to Chlorine Dioxide Exposure in California Reported
by Type of Illness and Year, 1982-2003

Year

Illness Type

Systemic

Mouth

Eye

Skin

Respiratory

Combinationa

Total

1990	-	-	-	-

3

-

3

1991

1

-

1

-

2

1

3

1994	2	-	-	-

4

2

4

1997	-	-	-	-

4

-

4

2001

1

1

2

2

-

1

5

Total

4

1

3

2

13

4

19

a Category includes combined effects to eye, skin, mouth and respiratory
systems.

Table 3: Number of Persons Disabled (taking time off work) or
Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days after Chlorine Dioxide
Exposure in California, 1982-2003.

Number of Persons Disabled

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day

-

-

Two days

-

-

3-5 days

2

-

Unknown

3

-

 tc \l1 "

3.0	REFERENCES

Aggazzotti,G; Fabiani, L.;  Triassi, M,; Sciacca,  S.;  Ravera, G.;
Kanitz, S.;  Barbone, F.; Sansebastiano,  K.;  Battaglia,  M.A.; and
Leoni, V.  2003   Exposure to chlorite and chlorate in drinking water
and adverse pregnancy outcomes in Italy.  Epidemiology.  14 (5): S24.

Ames, R.G. and  Stratton, J.W, 1987..  Effect of chlorine dioxide water
disinfection on hematologic and serum parameters of renal dialysis
patients.  Archives of Environmental Health.: 42(5): 280-285.)

Cedergren, M.I.; Selbing,  A.J.; Lofman, O.; and  Kallen, B.A.J. 2002
Chlorination byproducts and nitrate in drinking water and risk for
congenital cardiac defects.  Environmental Research Section A.  89:
124-130.

Michael,  G.E.;  Miday,  R.K.; Bercz, J.P.;  Miller, R.G.;  Greathouse,
D.G.;  Kraemer, D.F.; and  Lucas, J.B. 1981.  Chlorine dioxide water
disinfection: a prospective epidemiology study.  Archives of
Environmental Health.  36(1): 20-27.

 PAGE

Page  PAGE  12  of   NUMPAGES  12


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27116-27117]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 312

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0447]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Charging for Investigational Drugs
Under an Investigational New Drug Application--Questions and Answers;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Charging for
Investigational Drugs Under an IND--Qs & As.'' This guidance is
intended to provide information for industry, researchers, and
physicians on how FDA is implementing its regulation on charging for an
investigational drug under an investigational new drug (IND)
application. FDA has received a number of questions about how it is
implementing the charging regulation. Therefore, FDA is providing this
draft guidance in a question and answer format, addressing the most
frequently asked questions and answers, including questions about
charging for investigational drugs made available under expanded access
programs.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (HFM-40), Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research:

Colleen L. Locicero, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4200,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:

Stephen M. Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-
17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Charging for Investigational Drugs Under an IND--Qs & As.''
In 2009, FDA amended its regulation concerning charging for
investigational new drugs under an IND (August 13, 2009; 74 FR 40872).
The new regulation, which went into effect on October 13, 2009, removed
paragraph (d) of Sec.  312.7 (21 CFR 312.7) and replaced it with new
Sec.  312.8. The new regulation is intended to clarify the
circumstances in which charging for an investigational drug in a
clinical trial is appropriate, to set forth criteria for charging for
an investigational drug for the three types of expanded access for
treatment use described in subpart I of 21 CFR part 312, and to clarify
what costs can be recovered for an investigational drug. Elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability
of the draft guidance entitled ``Expanded Access to Investigational
Drugs for Treatment Use--Qs & As,'' which is intended to provide
information about FDA's implementation of its expanded access
regulations (21 CFR part 312, subpart I).
    Since Sec.  312.8 has been in effect, FDA has received numerous
questions about how it is implementing the regulation and interpreting
various provisions. Consistent with the goal of clarifying the
requirements for charging for an investigational drug and the types of
costs that can be recovered, FDA is providing a draft guidance in a
question and answer format, addressing the most frequently asked
questions and answers about charging for investigational drug under an
IND.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance

practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on charging for
an investigational drug under an IND. 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 statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in Sec.  312.8 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0014.

III. 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). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2013-11006 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 52948-52950]
[DOCID:fr17se07-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-56380; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend its Rules Pertaining to the Contract Multiplier
for Credit Default Options

September 10, 2007.
    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 7, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a
``non-controversial'' proposed rule

change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ CBOE gave the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change on August 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules pertaining to the
applicable contract multiplier for Credit Default Options (``CDOs'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's principal office,

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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently received approval to list and trade CDOs,\6\
which are binary call options based on Credit Events \7\ in one or more
debt securities of an issuer or guarantor. If the Exchange confirms a
Credit Event, a CDO would be subject to automatic exercise and a fixed
cash settlement amount payment of $100,000 per contract. The $100,000
is equal to a fixed exercise settlement value of $100 multiplied by a
fixed contract multiplier of 1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55871 (June 6,
2007), 72 FR 32372 (June 12, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-84).
    \7\ A ``Credit Event'' occurs when an issuer or guarantor has a
Failure-to-Pay Default on, any other Event of Default on, and/or a
Restructuring of the Relevant Obligation(s). Failure-to-Pay
Defaults, Events of Default, and Restructurings are defined in
accordance with the terms of the Relevant Obligation(s) and are
subject to certain minimum threshold amounts provided in Rule
29.1(c). The ``Relevant Obligations'' are the debt security
obligation(s) of the issuer or guarantor that underlie a CDO. See
Rules 29.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this rule change is to modify the rule provisions
pertaining to CDO contract multipliers to permit the Exchange to vary
the particular contract multiplier term on a class-by-class basis
within a range of 1 to 1,000.\8\ The exercise settlement value would
remain fixed at $100. Thus, a given CDO class could have a cash
settlement amount ranging from $100 per contract (equal to an exercise
settlement value of $100 multiplied by a contract multiplier of 1) to
$100,000 per contract (equal to an exercise settlement value of $100
multiplied by a contract multiplier of 1,000). Based on feedback from
members and potential investors, the Exchange believes it is essential
to have the ability to introduce CDOs where the contract payout is less
than $100,000 in order to attract liquidity and to better service
customer demands and needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed change to Rule 29.1(a) and corresponding change
to Rule 29.9(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating the applicable position limits and reporting
requirements, the Exchange is proposing that any ``reduced-value'' CDOs
(i.e., CDOs that have a cash settlement amount that is less than
$100,000 per contract) would be aggregated with any equivalent full-
value CDOs and counted by the amount by which they equal a full-value
CDO contract.\9\ For example, the Exchange might determine to list
reduced-value CDOs based on a Failure-to-Pay Default of the Relevant
Obligations of Issuer ABC using a contract multiplier of 100, in which
case the reduced-value CDO would be subject to a $10,000 per contract
payout upon confirmation of a Failure-to-Pay Default ($100 multiplied
by 100, which is \1/10\th the value of a full-value CDO). The
applicable position limits and reporting requirements would be
equivalent to the reduced-value contract factor multiplied by the
applicable position limits for a full-value option on the same broad-
based index. Using the example above, the position limits for the
reduced-value CDOs (\1/10\th full-value) would be 50,000 contracts,
which is equal to the applicable reduced-value factor (10) multiplied
by the applicable position limit for a full-value CDO class (5,000
contracts).\10\ Likewise, the hedge reporting requirements would be
10,000 contracts, which is equal to the applicable factor (10)
multiplied by the applicable reporting level for a full-value CDO class
(1,000 contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed changes to Rules 29.5(a) and 29.6.
    \10\ As indicated above, positions in reduced-value CDOs would
be aggregated with positions in equivalent full-value CDOs for
purposes of calculating position limit and reporting requirements.
For example, if a CDO is reduced by one-tenth, ten reduced-value CDO
contracts would equal one full-value contract. If a CDO is reduced
by one-fifth, five reduced-value CDO contracts would equal one full-
value CDO contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to
national securities exchanges. Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\11\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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 proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-105 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-CBOE-2007-105. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-2007-105 and should be
submitted on or before October 9, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18217 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26332-26335]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83350; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2018-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
the NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades and NYSE National
Integrated Feed Market Data Feeds

May 31, 2018.
    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 May 18, 2018, NYSE National, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
National'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE National BBO (``NYSE
National BBO''), NYSE National Trades (``NYSE National Trades'') and
NYSE National Integrated Feed (``NYSE National Integrated Feed'')
market data feeds. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish NYSE National BBO, NYSE National
Trades and NYSE National Integrated Feed (``NYSE National Market Data
Feeds'').
NYSE National BBO
    NYSE National BBO is a NYSE National-only market data feed that
provides vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same
best-bid-and-offer information that NYSE National reports under the
Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'') and the Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (``OTC UTP Plan'').
NYSE National BBO would include the best bids and offers (``NYSE
National BBO Information'') for all securities that are traded on the
Exchange. NYSE National will make the NYSE National BBO available over
a single data feed, regardless of the markets on which the securities
are listed.
    NYSE National BBO would allow vendors, broker-dealers, and others
(``NYSE National Vendors'') to consume and make available NYSE National
BBO Information on a real-time basis. NYSE National Vendors may
distribute the NYSE National BBO to both professional and non-
professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE National BBO
Information available through the NYSE National BBO data feed no
earlier than it makes that information available to the processor under
the CQ Plan or the OTC UTP Plan, as applicable.
NYSE National Trades
    NYSE National Trades is a NYSE National-only market data feed that
provides vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same
last sale information that NYSE National reports under the Consolidated
Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan'') and the OTC UTP Plan for inclusion
in the consolidated feeds. NYSE National Trades would include the real-
time last sale price, time and size information (``NYSE National Last
Sale Information'') for all securities that are traded on the Exchange.
NYSE National will make the NYSE National Trades available over a
single data feed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are
listed.
    NYSE National Trades would allow NYSE National Vendors to consume
and make available NYSE National Last Sale Information on a real-time
basis. NYSE National Vendors may distribute the NYSE National Trades to
both professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would
make NYSE National Last Sale Information available through the NYSE
National Trades data feed no earlier than it makes that information
available to the processor under the CTA Plan or the OTC UTP Plan, as
applicable. In addition to the information that the Exchange provides
to the processor, NYSE National Last Sale Information will also include
a unique sequence number that the Exchange assigns to each trade and
that allows an investor to track the context of a trade through other
Exchange market data products.
NYSE National Integrated Feed
    NYSE National Integrated Feed is a NYSE National-only market data
feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis
with a unified view of events, in sequence, as they appear on the NYSE
National matching engines. The NYSE National Integrated Feed would
include depth of book order data, last sale data, and security status
updates (e.g., trade corrections and trading halts) and stock summary
messages. The stock summary message would update every minute and would
include NYSE National's opening price, high price, low price, closing
price, and cumulative volume for a security. The NYSE National
Integrated Feed would include information available to vendors and
subscribers of NYSE National Trades, a service that would make
available NYSE National last sale information on a real-time basis.
    Offering an integrated product addresses requests received from
vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described
above in an integrated fashion. An integrated data feed would provide
greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that
currently choose to integrate the data after receiving it from the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers
with the option of a market data product that both integrates existing
products and includes additional market data would allow vendors and
subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific businesses.
    The Exchange proposes to offer the NYSE National Market Data Feeds
through the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network (``LCN''), a local area
network in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is
available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange
would also offer the NYSE National Market Data Feeds through the
Exchange's Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (``SFTI'')
network, through which all other users and members access the
Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market
data products.
    At this time, the Exchange does not intend to charge any fees
associated with the receipt of NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades
or NYSE National Integrated Feed. The Exchange will submit a proposed
rule change to the Commission should it determine to charge fees
associated with the receipt of NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades
or NYSE National Integrated Feed. The Exchange will announce the date
that the NYSE National Market Data Feeds would be available through a
NYSE National Market Data Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act (``Act''),\3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
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, and it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those principles in that it
promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the NYSE
National Market Data Feeds to those interested in receiving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public
interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
providing investors with new options for receiving market data as
requested by market data vendors and purchasers. The proposed rule
change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to
the real-time information contained in the NYSE National Market Data
Feeds.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker

dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique
market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this
authority would expand the amount of data available to users and
consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the NYSE National
Market Data Feeds are precisely the sort of market data products that
the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The
Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's
goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
    Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data
beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and
consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay
for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is
promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for)
additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need
for such data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (Regulation NMS Adopting
Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to
the Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free
delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as
well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data
feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory
because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their
individual business cases warrant.
    The NYSE National Market Data Feeds will help to protect a free and
open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by
giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not
permit unfair discrimination because the products will be available to
all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers through both the LCN
and SFTI.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\6\ 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. Because other exchanges already offer similar
products, the Exchange's proposed NYSE National Market Data Feeds will
enhance competition. For example, NYSE National BBO would provide an
alternative to NYSE Arca BBO,\7\ offered by the Exchange's affiliate,
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), Nasdaq Basic,\8\ offered by The Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), and Cboe Top,\9\ offered by Cboe
Global Markets, Inc. (``Cboe''). Additionally, NYSE National Trades
would provide an alternative to NYSE Arca Trades,\10\ offered by NYSE
Arca, Nasdaq Basic,\11\ offered by Nasdaq, and Cboe Last Sale,\12\
offered by Cboe. Finally, NYSE National Integrated Feed would provide
an alternative to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed,\13\ offered by NYSE Arca,
Nasdaq TotalView-Itch,\14\ offered by Nasdaq, and Cboe Depth,\15\
offered by Cboe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \7\ See NYSE Arca BBO, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/bbo (provides best bid/ask quotations for all traded
securities).
    \8\ See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (provides Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale Information).
    \9\ See Cboe Top, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/ (provides real-time top-of-book quotations,
matched trade price, volume and execution time).
    \10\ See NYSE Arca Trades, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/trades (provides real-time Last Sale information for all
traded securities).
    \11\ See Nasdaq Basic, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic (provides Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale Information).
    \12\ See Cboe Last Sale, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/. (provides real-time matched trade price,
volume and execution time).
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, https://www.nyse.com/market-data/real-time/integrated-feed (provides a comprehensive order-by-
order view of events in the equities market, including depth of
book, trades, order imbalance data, and security status messages).
    \14\ See Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2 (displays the full order book depth for
Nasdaq market participants and also disseminates the Net Order
Imbalance Indicator (NOII) for the Nasdaq Opening and Closing
Crosses and Nasdaq IPO/Halt Cross).
    \15\ See Cboe Depth, https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/ (provides real-time, depth-of-book quotations
and execution information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE National Market Data Feeds provide investors with new
options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the
market data amendments

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest; provided that the SRO has given 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 the designated by the
Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\19\ 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 both the five day pre-filing requirement and
the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated its belief such waivers
would be consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the waiver of the pre-filing requirement and the
operative delay would allow the Exchange to provide the NYSE National
Market Data Feeds immediately upon launch of NYSE National. The
Commission grants the Exchange's request for waivers of the pre-filing
requirement and the operative delay \20\ because the waivers would
permit the Exchange to begin offering its proprietary market data
products, which would be comparable to those offered by other
exchanges, to interested market

participants concurrent with the re-launch of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ In considering the Exchange's request to waive the
requirement of the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has
considered, in addition to the protection of investors, the impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \21\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-09. 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-NYSENAT-2018-09 and should be submitted
on or before June 27, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12110 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6253]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP09-6-001; CP09-7-001; Docket No. CP13-507-000]

LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC;
Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental
Review of the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington
Expansion Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) for LNG Development Company, LLC's and Oregon Pipeline
Company, LLC's Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Northwest
Pipeline LLC's Washington Expansion Project. The first notice of
schedule, issued on April 17, 2015, identified February 12, 2016 as the
final EIS issuance date. However, additional information is required to
respond to comments on the draft EIS. As a result, staff has requested
supplemental information from the applicants and revised the schedule
for issuance of the final EIS.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability    June 3, 2016.
 of the final EIS.
90-day Federal Authorization          September 1, 2016.
 Decision Deadline.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
projects' progress.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp). Additional information
about the projects may be accessed through the FERC's Web site at
www.ferc.gov Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search''
and enter the docket number(s), excluding the last three digits in the
Docket Number field (i.e., CP09-6, CP09-7, or CP13-507).

    Dated: February 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02254 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18427-18430]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06629]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94506; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fee Schedule

March 24, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 14, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'' or ``BZX
Equities'') is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equities
platform (``BZX Equities'') to adopt fees for Certification Logical
Port fees, effective March 1, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 1, 2022 (SR-CboeBZX-2022-012). On March 14, 2022, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Exchange offers a variety of logical
ports, which provide users with the ability within the Exchange's
System to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as
order entry, data receipt or access to information. Particularly, the
Exchange offers Logical Ports,\4\ Purge Ports,\5\ Multicast PITCH GRP
Ports, and Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports.\6\ For each type of the
aforementioned logical ports that is used in the production
environment, the Exchange also offers corresponding ports which provide
Members and non-Members access to the Exchange's certification
environment to test proprietary systems and applications (i.e.,
``Certification Logical Ports''). The certification environment
facilitates testing using replicas of the Exchange's production
environment process configurations which provide for a robust and
realistic testing experience. For example, the certification
environment allows unlimited firm-level testing of order types, order
entry, order management, order throughput, acknowledgements, risk
settings, mass cancelations, and purge requests. Historically, the
Exchange has not assessed fees for Certification Logical Ports. The
Exchange now proposes to establish a monthly fee for Certification
Logical Ports. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt a monthly
fee of $250 per Certification Logical Port. However, the Exchange notes
that it will continue to offer free of charge one Certification Logical
Port per logical port type offered in the production environment (i.e.,
Logical Ports, Purge, Multicast PITCH GRP, and Multicast PITCH Spin
Server) to each Member or non-Member, as applicable. Any additional
Certification Logical Ports will be assessed $250 per month per
port.\7\ The Exchange notes that purchasing additional Certification
Logical Ports is voluntary and not required in order to participate in
the production environment, including live production trading on the
Exchange. Additionally, Members and non-Members are not required to
purchase any particular production logical port in order to receive a
corresponding Certification Logical Port free of charge.\8\ Further,
the Exchange also notes that other exchanges similarly assess fees
related to their respective testing environments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Logical Ports include FIX and BOE ports (used for order
entry), drop logical port (which grants users the ability to receive
and/or send drop copies) and ports that are used for receipt of
certain market data feeds.
    \5\ Purge Ports are dedicated ports that permit a User to
simultaneously cancel all or a subset of its orders in one or more
symbols across multiple logical ports by requesting the Exchange to
effect such cancellation.
    \6\ Spin Ports and GRP Ports are used to request and receive a
retransmission of data from the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data
feeds.
    \7\ For example, if a Member maintains 3 FIX Certification
Logical Ports, 1 Purge Certification Logical Port, and 1 set of
Multicast PITCH Spin Server Certification Logical Port, the Member
will be assessed $500 per month for Certification Logical Port Fees
(i.e., 1 FIX, 1 Purge and 1 set of Multicast PITCH Spin Server
Certification Logical Ports x $0 and 2 FIX Certification Logical
Ports x $250).
    \8\ For example, a Member may obtain a Certification Purge Port
free of charge, even if that Member has not otherwise purchased a
Purge Port for the live production environment. Certification
Logical Ports are not automatically enabled for each User, but
rather must be proactively requested by users.
    \9\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Equity 7, Pricing
Schedule, Section 130. See also MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 4, Testing and Certification Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange does not intend to prorate Certification
Logical Ports for the first month of service and intends to make this
clear in the notes section under the Purge and Market Data Logical Port
Fees section of the Fees Schedule.
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.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange's certification environment provides a
robust and realistic testing experience using a replica of the
Exchange's production environment process configurations. This
environment enables market participants to manage risk more effectively
through testing software development changes in certification prior to
implementing them in the live trading environment, thereby reducing the
likelihood of a potentially disruptive system failure in the live
trading environment, which has the potential to affect all market
participants. As such, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to adopt a
Certification Logical Port fee as it better

enables the Exchange to continue to maintain and improve its testing
environment, which the Exchange believes serves to improve live
production trading on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes the
proposed Certification Logical Port fee is reasonable because while
such ports will no longer be completely free, Members and non-Members
will continue to be entitled to receive free of charge one
Certification Logical Port for each type of logical port that are
currently offered in the production environment. Notably, the Exchange
believes one Certification Logical Port per logical port type will be
sufficient for most users and indeed anticipates that the majority of
users will not purchase additional Certification Logical Ports. More
specifically, while the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty the impact of the proposed changes, it anticipates
approximately 20% of Users to be assessed fees for Certification
Logical Ports (i.e., request Certification Ports in excess of the
Certification Logical Ports provided free of charge). For those users
who wish to obtain additional Certification Logical Ports based on
their respective business needs, they are able to do so for a modest
fee. Indeed, the proposed fee is lower than the fees assessed for the
corresponding logical ports used in the Exchange's production
environment.\13\ Additionally, the Exchange notes other exchanges
similarly assess fees relating to their respective testing
environments.\14\ Further, the decision to purchase additional ports is
optional and no market participant is required or under any regulatory
obligation to purchase excess Certification Logical Ports in order to
access the Exchange's certification environment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe BZX Equities Fees Schedule, Purge and Market Data
Logical Port Fees and Match Capacity Fees.
    \14\ See e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Equity 7, Pricing
Schedule, Section 130. See also MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 4, Testing and Certification Fees.
    \15\ Although many Users use Certification Logical Ports on a
daily basis, the Exchange notes frequency of use of Certification
Logical Ports varies by User and depends on a User's business needs.
To the extent a User purchases additional Certification Logical
Ports and its respective needs change or it determines it no longer
wishes to maintain excess Certification Logical Ports, the User is
free to cancel such ports for the following month(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all market
participants that choose to obtain additional Certification Logical
Ports. The Exchange also believes the proposed fee is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to
encourage market participants to be efficient with their respective
Certification Logical Port usage. Without some sort of fee for its
Certification Logical Ports, the Exchange believes that Members and
non-Members may be less efficient in testing their systems, potentially
resulting in excessive time and resources being consumed by the
Exchange in supporting testing and certifying Members and non-Members
to the detriment of all market participants as Exchange resources are
diverted away from other trading operations. Additionally, similar to
its production environment, the Exchange's certification environment
does not have unlimited system capacity to support unlimited testing.
As such, the proposed fee structure also ensures that firms that use
the most capacity pay for that capacity, rather than placing that
burden on market participants that have more modest needs. The Exchange
lastly believes that its proposed fee is aligned with the goals of the
Commission in facilitating a competitive market for all firms that
trade on the Exchange and of ensuring that critical market
infrastructure has ``levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational
capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7-01-13)
(Regulation SCI Adopting Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition because as the proposed change
applies uniformly to all market participants. Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee creates an undue burden
on competition because the Exchange will continue to offer free of
charge one Certification Logical Port per each logical port type
offered in the production environment. Although the Exchange now
proposes to charge users for additional Certification Logical Ports,
the Exchange believes without some sort of fee assessed for excess
Certification Logical Ports, Members and non-Members may be less
efficient in testing their systems, potentially resulting in excessive
time and resources being consumed by the Exchange and also potentially
impacting the certification environment's capacity thresholds. The
proposed fee structure therefore would ensure that market participants
that pay the proposed fee are the ones that demand the most resources
from the Exchange. Also as discussed, the purchase of additional ports
is optional and based on the business needs of each market participant.
Moreover, such market participants will continue to benefit from access
to the certification environment, which the Exchange believes provides
a robust and realistic testing experience via a replica of the
production environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly,
the proposed change applies only to the Exchange's certification
environment. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues
that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15
other equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading
systems and other off-exchange venues, where competitive products are
available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send
their orders to other exchanges, and, additionally off-exchange venues,
if they deem overall fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \17\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing

agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\18\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \18\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-020. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-020 and should be submitted
on or before April 20, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06629 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61772-61773]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65417; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Two-Day Settlement on CBOE Stock Exchange

September 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the rules of the CBOE Stock Exchange
(``CBSX'') to permit the specification of bids and offers for delivery
on the second business day following the day of the contract. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal ), 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    According to CBOE Rule 51.7, bids and offers on CBSX may specify
delivery on the day of a contract, on the business day following the
day of the contract, and on the third business day following the day of
the contract.\5\ This rule does not permit delivery on the second
business day following the day of the contract. Broker-dealers who
execute a ``cross'', resulting from the stock component of EFP
(effective-for-physical) futures transactions, have requested that CBSX
support a two-day settlement period in a similar manner as competing
stock exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rule 51.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Exchange wishes to amend Rule 51.7 to permit
delivery on the second business day following the day of the contract
in order to provide CBSX Traders with the ability to agree upon
delivery on any day from the day of the contract to the third business
day following the day of the contract. This additional option provides
further flexibility for investors regarding delivery of contracts.
Moreover, the addition of two-day settlement puts the Exchange on a
more even footing with other exchanges that permit delivery of a
contract on second business day following the day of the contract.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') chart titled
``Delivery Dates on Exchange Contracts'' at the beginning of the
Section titled ``Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45-299C) (the
``NYSE Chart'') and NYSE Amex LLC (``Amex'') Equities Rule 14. The
``Seller's Option'' form of delivery described on the NYSE chart
stipulates that delivery may occur ``not less than two business days
nor more than 180 days'' following the day of the contract. Amex
Equities Rule 14 stipulates that delivery may occur ``not less than
two business days after trade date and not more than 60 days after
trade date.'' While these rules differ from the proposed rule change
in that they permit settlement at a later date than the proposed
rule, they also permit settlement on the second business day
following the trade date (like the proposed rule change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \7\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The proposed rule change perfects the mechanism
for a free and open market by providing another option for the delivery
of contracts and permitting CBSX Traders to agree upon delivery on any
day from the day of the contract to the third business day following
the day of the contract. Other exchanges already provide this
option.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ See Note 6.

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

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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \12\
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period. The Exchange proposes to add an additional
option for settlement delivery consistent with the practices of other
exchanges. Therefore, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-CBOE-2011-089 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-2011-089. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office 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-2011-089 and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25572 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63886]
[DOCID:fr28oc08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM01-5-000, Order No. 714]

Electronic Tariff Filings

October 22, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a document
in the Federal Register on October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57515), revising
Commission rules. That document inadvertently included two non-
substantive errors in the instructions for the amendatory language.
This document corrects those instructions.

DATES: Effective Date: Effective on November 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andre Goodson, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E8-22500 appearing on page 57515
in the Federal Register of Friday, October 3, 2008, the following
corrections are made:

Sec.  35.13  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 57532, in the second column, in Sec.  35.13, instruction 14g
is revised to read as follows: In paragraph (b)(3), the word
``schedule'' is removed; and the word ``mailed'' is removed, and the
word ``posted'' is added in its place.

Sec.  35.14  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 57532, in the third column, in Sec.  35.14, instruction 15a
is revised to read as follows: In paragraph (a), introductory text, the
phrase ``(fuel clause)'' is added after the phrase ``Fuel adjustment
clauses'', and the phrase ``, tariffs or service agreements'' is added
after the phrase ``rate schedules'' anywhere it appears in the
paragraph's introductory text.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25611 Filed 10-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P