[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29688-29690]
[DOCID:fr22my08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0010]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mill Neck Creek, Oyster Bay, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has changed the drawbridge operation
regulations that govern the operation of the Bayville Bridge, mile 0.1,
across Mill Neck Creek at Oyster Bay, New York. This final rule will
allow the bridge to open on signal between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. from May
1 through October 31 and between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, from November 1 through April 30. At all other times the bridge
will open after a two-hour advance notice is

given by calling the number posted at the bridge. The purpose of this
rule is to help relieve the bridge owner from the burden of crewing the
bridge during time periods that the bridge receives few requests to
open.

DATES: This rule is effective June 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket (USCG-2008-0010) and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the
First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York,
NY 10004, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 7, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mill Neck Creek,
Oyster Bay, NY,'' in the Federal Register (73 FR 12315). We received
two letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Bayville Bridge has a vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high
water, and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The
existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.5,
require the bridge to open on signal at all times.
    On March 8, 2007, the bridge owner, the County of Nassau,
Department of Public Works, requested a change to the drawbridge
operation regulations to help provide relief from the burden of
providing a draw tender at the bridge during time periods when bridge
seldom receives a request to open.
    On April 13, 2007, the Coast Guard authorized a temporary deviation
with a request for public comment in order to test the proposed rule
change. The temporary test deviation was in effect from May 25, 2007,
through November 20, 2007, with a comment period open until November
30, 2007. The Coast Guard received no comments or complaints from
mariners in response to the temporary test deviation.
    As a result of the above information, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to permanently change the
drawbridge operation regulations for the Bayville Bridge. Under the
notice of proposed rulemaking the bridge would be required to open on
signal between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., from May 1 through October 31, and
between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, from November 1
through April 30. At all other times the draw shall open on signal
after at least a two-hour advance notice is provided by calling the
number posted at the bridge.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received two comment letters from the New York
State Office of Parks and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company in response to
the notice of proposed rulemaking. Both comment letters stated no
objection to the proposed rule change and as a result, no changes have
been made to this final rule.

Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3), of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic will still
be able to transit through the Bayville Bridge at any time provided
they give a two-hour advance notice during the time periods the bridge
is not crewed.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic will still
be able to transit through the Bayville Bridge at any time provided
they give a two-hour advance notice during time periods the bridge is
not crewed.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was
given.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the

aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one
year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation considering that it relates to the promulgation of
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast amends 33 CFR part
117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  117.800 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.800  Mill Neck Creek.

    The draw of the Bayville Bridge, mile 0.1, at Oyster Bay, New York,
shall open on signal between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., from May 1 through
October 31, and between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, from
November 1 through April 30. At all other times the draw shall open on
signal provided at least a two-hour advance notice is given by calling
the number posted at the bridge.

    Dated: May 13, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-11443 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 15, 2011

	On May 12th, 2011 and May 23rd we held conference calls with BAE to
discuss concerns raised by BAE regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic
(OBD) requirements and timing. We did not get through the entire agenda
in the first meeting; therefore, we finished discussing the items on the
agenda in the meeting on May 23rd.  Concerns were raised during the
comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed
rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet
the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD
Final Rulemaking.,  Specifically, they have requested a delay of the
application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until 2020.
Attendees from the EPA and BAE are shown in the table below.  The agenda
is on the following page of this memo.

Attendee 	Affiliation 	Attended May 12th Meeting	Attended May 23rd
Meeting

Cleophas Jackson	EPA	Yes	Yes

Anthony Neam 	EPA	Yes	Yes

Amy Kopin 	EPA	Yes	Yes

Tom Apalenek	BAE	Yes	Yes

James Dupuy	BAE	Yes	No

Erin Hissong	BAE	Yes	No

Derek Matthews	BAE	Yes	Yes

Harry White	BAE	Yes	No

Margee Meckstroth	BAE	No	Yes

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

EPA-BAE Heavy-Duty Hybrid OBD Discussion

11am-noon EST  	May 12, 2011

Agenda

What is your current OBD J1939 capability for handling faults?

If you don’t have any, how long do you estimate it will take to make
your current controller’s software J1939 capable?

Comprehensive Components:

What is your understanding of what you need to do for comprehensive
components?

Why do you think your current diagnostics won’t meet comprehensive
components?

Given that the hybrid system is only covered under comprehensive
components, how long will it take for your company to make your current
diagnostics J1939 compatible for fault storage and reporting?

Do you have the ability to determine an open, shorted to voltage,
shorted to ground, an irrational sensor, and a nonfunctioning output
component for your hybrid electronical components?

Are there specific requirements or regulations that you anticipate
having problems with and can you identify them?

EPA Heavy-Duty OBD Rulemaking and Alternative Fuels Timing

Next Steps

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67440-67443]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27792]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76262; File No. SR-CHX-2015-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Unify Procedures for the Handling of Resting Orders in a Security
Subject to a Trading Halt, Pause or Suspension on the Exchange

October 26, 2015.
    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 October 19, 2015, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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

    CHX proposes to amend CHX Rules to unify procedures for the
handling of resting orders in a security subject to a trading halt,
pause or suspension on the Exchange. CHX has designated this proposed
rule change as non-controversial pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of
the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder and has provided the
Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\5\ The
text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at (www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend CHX Rules to unify procedures for
the handling of resting orders in a security subject to a trading halt,
pause or suspension on the Exchange.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to apply the current procedures for the handling of resting
orders in a security subject to a Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'')
trading pause \7\ to all trading halts on the Exchange (``proposed
unification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange may initiate a trading halt, pause or
suspension for various reasons, including, but not limited to,
technical issues with the Matching System or in response to a
regulatory halt initiated by the primary listing market.
    \7\ See CHX Article 20, Rule 2A(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, upon initiation of any trading halt, pause or suspension
in a security on the Exchange, the Exchange will take the following
actions:
     Stop all trading in the security;
     Cancel all resting orders marked Cancel On Halt, as
defined under Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(B); and
     Reject all incoming orders; provided valid incoming Sub-
second Non-displayed Auction Process Auction Only Orders (``SNAP
AOOs''), as defined under Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3),\8\ not marked Cancel
On Halt received during a trading halt on the Exchange will be placed
in the SNAP AOO Queue, pursuant to Article 18, Rule 1(c)(4),\9\ and not
cancelled.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3) is effective, but not yet
operative. See infra note 10.
    \9\ CHX Article 20, Rule 8(b)(2)(A) is effective, but not yet
operative. See infra note 10.
    \10\ The proposed rule change to adopt SNAP was recently
approved, but is not yet operative. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76087 (October 6, 2015), 80 FR 61540 (October 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Exchange handles resting orders in a security subject
to a trading halt, pause or suspension on the Exchange differently
depending on whether trading is stopped due to a LULD trading pause. In
the case of a LULD trading pause, the Exchange will cancel all resting
orders in the subject security, except that SNAP AOOs not marked Cancel
On Halt will be placed or remain in the SNAP AOO Queue and not
cancelled.\11\ However, for all other trading halts, pauses or
suspensions, the Exchange will maintain the resting orders in the
subject security, except that orders marked Cancel On Halt will be
cancelled.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CHX Article 20, Rule 2A(c); see also CHX Article 18,
Rule 1(c) (which is effective, but not yet operative); see also
supra note 10.
    \12\ See paragraph .02 of CHX Article 20, Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the initiation of any trading halt, pause or suspension in a
security on the Exchange, the Exchange now proposes to cancel all
resting orders in the security, while maintaining the current exception
for SNAP AOOs not marked Cancel On Halt. To this end, the Exchange
proposes various amendments to CHX Rules, as described below.
    Initially, as a global amendment, the Exchange proposes to replace
certain references throughout CHX Rules to trading halts, suspensions
and/or pauses, or some combination thereof, with the more uniform
``trading halts, suspensions or pauses.'' The Exchange believes that
this consistency will promote clarity of CHX Rules. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to make such amendments to Article 1, Rule
2(b)(1)(B); Article 18, Rule 1(b)(3); Article 20, Rule 1(b) and (d);
\13\ and paragraph .02 of Article 20, Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Incidentally, the Exchange proposes to amend CHX Article
20, Rule 1(b) to replace reference to ``Rules 1(d) and (2)'' with
``CHX Rules'' generally, as trading halts, pauses or suspensions may
be effected on the Exchange pursuant to various CHX Rules,
including, but not limited to, Article 20, Rules 1(d) and (2).
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend CHX Article 20, Rule 1(d)
to provide that trading may also be halted, paused or suspended on
the Exchange, and resumed thereafter, pursuant to other CHX Rules.
Specifically, trading halts, pauses or suspensions may be declared
and lifted pursuant to the following CHX Rules: Article 20, Rules
1(d), 2, 2A and 10; and Article 22, Rule 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended paragraph .02 of Article 20, Rule 1
    Current paragraph .02 of Article 20, Rule 1 provides as follows:

    If trading in one or more issues is suspended or halted, which
requires the Exchange to suspend trading in the issue, other than a
LULD Trading Pause, all orders in those issues shall remain in the
Matching System unless they are cancelled by the Participant that
submitted the order. The Matching System shall not accept any
orders, or any changes to orders (other than cancellations), in
those issues during a trading suspension or halt, subject to Article
18, Rule 1(c). Immediately after the trading halt or suspension has
ended, the Matching System shall begin accepting orders and shall
match them as provided in Rule 8(d), below.

    The Exchange now proposes to amend paragraph. 02 to contemplate the
proposed unification. The Exchange also proposes to clarify that
``resting'' orders shall be cancelled and that the amended rule applies
to trading halts, pauses and suspensions ``on the Exchange,'' which
obviates current language providing that the rule applies to trading
halts that require the Exchange to suspend trading in the issue. As
such, amended paragraph .02 provides as follows:

    If trading in one or more issues is halted, paused or suspended
on the Exchange, all resting orders in those issues shall be
cancelled from the Matching System, subject to Article 18, Rule
1(c). The Matching System shall not accept any orders in those
issues during a trading halt, pause or suspension, subject to
Article 18, Rule 1(c). Immediately after the trading halt, pause or
suspension has ended, the Matching System shall begin accepting
orders and shall match them as provided in Rule 8(d), below.
Amended Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(B) (Cancel On Halt)
    Current Article 1, Rule 2(b)(1)(B) defines ``Cancel On Halt'' as
follows:

    A limit order modifier that requires an order to be
automatically cancelled by the Matching System if a trading halt or
suspension is declared in that security.

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the definition to clarify that
orders marked Cancel On Halt will be cancelled if a trading halt, pause
or suspension is declared in the security ``on the Exchange,'' as
certain operational halts declared by away markets may not require the
Exchange to suspend trading in the security. Moreover, since the
Exchange proposes to cancel all resting orders, except for SNAP AOOs,
during a trading halt, pause or suspension, the Exchange proposes to
adopt additional language that provides that all limit orders, except
for SNAP AOOs, as defined under Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3), shall be
deemed to have been received Cancel On Halt, which cannot be overridden
by an order sender. The Exchange submits that this is appropriate
because the current rules require SNAP AOOs to be placed in, or remain
on, the SNAP AOO Queue during a trading halt, pause or suspension and,
thus, such queued SNAP AOOs would already be inactive and removed from
the SNAP CHX book, without the need for cancellations.\14\ As such,
amended Rule 2(b)(1)(B) provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CHX Article 18, Rule 1(c)(2) (which is effective, but
not yet operative); see also supra note 10.

    ``Cancel On Halt'': a limit order modifier that requires an
order to be automatically cancelled by the Matching System if a
trading halt, pause or suspension is declared in that security by
the Exchange.

    All limit orders, except for SNAP AOOs, as defined under
paragraph (h)(3), shall be deemed to have been received Cancel On
Halt, which cannot be overridden by an order sender.
Amended Article 18, Rule 1(c) (Halt or Pause During the SNAP Cycle)
    Current Article 18, Rule 1(c)(1) details the actions that would be
taken if a trading halt is initiated on the Exchange during a SNAP
Cycle.\15\ With respect to the handling of orders resting on the SNAP
CHX book, current Rule 1(c)(1) substantively tracks current paragraphs
.02 of Article 20, Rule 1 for trading halts, pauses and suspensions
that are not LULD trading pauses and Article 20, Rule 2A(c) for LULD
trading pauses.\16\ The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 1(c)(1) to
eliminate that distinction. As such, amended Rule 1(c)(1) provides as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b) (which is effective, but not
yet operative); see also supra note 10.
    \16\ See supra note 10.

    SNAP CHX book
    (A) During stages one or two. If the market snapshot taken
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(E) or (F) indicates that a material
halt, pause or suspension is in effect, the SNAP Cycle shall be
aborted and not proceed to stage three or stage five, as applicable.
The Exchange shall then cancel all orders resting on the SNAP CHX
book, subject to paragraph (c)(2) below.
    (B) During stages three or four. If the market snapshot taken
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(B) or (b)(4)(B) indicates that a
material halt, pause or suspension is in effect for the subject
security, the SNAP Cycle shall be aborted and not proceed to stage
five. The Exchange shall then cancel the unexecuted remainders of
all orders resting on the SNAP CHX book, subject to paragraph (c)(2)
below.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \17\ in that it would further enable the
Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry
out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its Participants and persons associated with its Participants, with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of the Exchange, in furtherance of the objectives of Section
6(b)(1),\18\ and it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and, in general, by
protecting investors and the public interest, in furtherance of the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed unification
of the Exchange's procedures regarding resting orders in a security
subject to a trading halt, pause or suspension on the Exchange will
simplify the Exchange's operational procedures, which will remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market,
in furtherance of the objectives of Section 6(b)(5). Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed unification and other clarifying
amendments, will simplify CHX Rules, which will further enable the
Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry
out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its Participants and persons associated with its Participants, with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of the Exchange, in furtherance of the objectives of Section
6(b)(1).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not implicate any
competitive issues as it is intended to simplify and clarify CHX
operational procedures with respect to trading halts, pauses and
suspensions.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), CHX provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and the 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 requested that the Commission waive the
requirement that the rule change, by its terms, not become operative
for 30 days after the date of the filing as set forth in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\22\ so that the proposal may become immediately operative
upon filing. The Exchange anticipates its recently approved SNAP
functionality will become operative during the thirty day pre-operative
waiting period for this filing.\23\ The Commission believes that waiver
of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it eliminates a source of potential for
confusion regarding the Exchange's rules governing SNAP-related trading
halt, pause and suspension procedures. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the thirty-day operative delay and designates the proposal
effective upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ See supra note 10.
    \24\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File NumberSR-CHX-2015-05 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-CHX-2015-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the Exchange's principal office. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2015-05 and should be
submitted on or before November 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-27792 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P