[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65162-65164]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5465]

Center for Devices and Radiological Health Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization Master File Pilot Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency or we)
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH or Center) is
announcing its Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Master File Pilot Program
(``EtO Pilot Program''). The EtO Pilot Program is voluntary and intends
to allow companies (``sterilization providers'') that sterilize single-
use medical devices using fixed chamber ethylene oxide (EtO) to submit
a Master File when making certain changes between sterilization sites
or when making certain changes to sterilization processes that utilize
reduced EtO concentrations. Under this voluntary program, manufacturers
(``PreMarket Application (PMA) holders'') of Class III devices subject
to premarket approval that are affected by such changes may, upon FDA's
permission, reference the Master File submitted by their sterilization
provider in a postapproval report in lieu of submission of a premarket
approval application (PMA) supplement. The EtO Pilot Program seeks to
help ensure patient access to safe medical devices while encouraging
new, innovative ways to sterilize medical devices that reduce the
potential impact of EtO on the environment and on the public health
while providing a regulatory approach that would address potential
device shortages.

DATES: FDA is seeking participation in the voluntary EtO Pilot Program
beginning November 26, 2019. See the ``Participation'' section for
selection criteria for participation in the EtO Pilot Program and the
``Procedures'' section for instructions on how to submit a Master File
for consideration for inclusion into the EtO Pilot Program. Up to nine
eligible participants may be selected for the EtO Pilot Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Elliott, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4630, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EtO sterilization is an important sterilization method that is
widely used to keep medical devices safe. Medical devices made from
certain polymers (such as plastic or resin), metals, or glass--or
devices that have multiple layers of packaging or hard-to-reach
crevices (such as catheters)--are often sterilized with EtO to avoid
product damage during the sterilization process. It is estimated that
approximately 50 percent of all sterile medical devices in the United
States are sterilized using EtO (Ref. 1).
    For many medical devices, sterilization with EtO may be the only
method \1\ currently evaluated that effectively sterilizes and does not
damage the device during the sterilization process. However, there have
been recent concerns about the effects of EtO exposure and
environmental emissions. Earlier this year, the FDA was made aware of
the closures of two device sterilization facilities due to concerns
about the level of EtO emissions (Ref. 2). Since then, the Agency has
been closely monitoring the situation and working with device
manufacturers affected by the closures to minimize impact to patients
who need device access. FDA continues to work with manufacturers on
site changes and engage with manufacturers about potential solutions to
shortage concerns. FDA has also taken several actions to advance
medical device sterilization, including sponsoring two innovation
challenges to identify alternatives to EtO sterilization methods (Ref.
3) and approaches to reduce EtO emissions (Ref. 4), and convening the
General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel on November 6 to 7,
2019 (November 2019 Panel Meeting), to discuss the role of EtO
sterilization in maintaining public health (84 FR 46546; see also Ref.
5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this notice, ``method'' generally refers to the type of
sterilization and ``processes'' generally refers to steps within
that method to achieve a sterile device. Changes from a conventional
EtO cycle to reduced/optimized EtO cycles would be considered a
process change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before most sterile medical devices are on the market, FDA reviews
premarket submissions to determine if the sterility information is
adequate (e.g., in accordance with internationally agreed upon
voluntary consensus standards that the FDA recognizes). If a medical
device manufacturer changes the method, process, or the facility
identified in its original PMA submission for sterilizing its devices,
the manufacturer generally needs to submit a PMA supplement so the
Agency can review these changes (Ref. 6). However, considering recent
events and concerns regarding EtO emissions, FDA recognizes the need to
facilitate timely site changes to keep supply interruptions at a
minimum and to facilitate changes to sterilization processes that
utilize reduced EtO concentrations. At the November 2019 Panel Meeting,
FDA received feedback from Panel members and stakeholders that the
Agency could help prevent medical device shortages and advance medical
device sterilization by expediting approvals of certain changes to EtO
sterilization methods, processes, and facilities (Ref. 5).
    For these reasons, FDA is announcing and soliciting participation
in the EtO Pilot Program. Under this pilot program, sterilization
providers that sterilize single-use medical devices using fixed chamber
EtO would submit a Master File when making certain changes between
sterilization sites or when making certain changes to sterilization
processes that utilize reduced EtO concentrations. Under this voluntary
program, PMA holders of Class III devices affected by such changes may,
upon FDA's permission, reference the Master File submitted by their
sterilization provider in a postapproval report, in accordance with
Sec.  814.84 (21 CFR 814.84), in lieu of submission of a PMA
supplement, to satisfy the requirements of Sec.  814.39(a) and (e) (21
CFR 814.39(a) and (e)). The pilot program is intended to provide
expeditious review and feedback to sterilization providers and PMA
holders on Master File submissions used to support changes made to
sterilization site and/or processes in a postapproval report rather
than a PMA supplement. FDA intends to evaluate pilot participation and
the progress of the pilot in 6 months and provide any updates to the
pilot in a subsequent notice, if appropriate. This postapproval report
does not remove or replace the

requirement to submit periodic (annual) reports identifying changes
made to the PMA under Sec.  814.39(b). At this time, PMAs reviewed by
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and PMAs for
combination products \2\ are not eligible for this pilot.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 21 CFR 3.2(e).
    \3\ FDA is not including 510(k) devices within the scope of the
pilot at this time. Manufacturers of 510(k) devices affected by such
changes should evaluate the changes according to FDA's Guidance,
``Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing
Device'' in determining whether a new 510(k) is required (available
at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/deciding-when-submit-510k-change-existing-device).
Generally, a new 510(k) would not be required for the types of
changes subject to this pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this document, the term ``sterilization
provider'' is used to refer to a device manufacturer's own in-house
sterilization facility or a device manufacturer's contract
sterilization provider, and encompasses any subcontractor facilities
utilizing the same quality system as the contract sterilization
provider, as applicable. For the purposes of this document, the term
``Conventional EtO cycle'' is used to refer to an EtO cycle that
utilizes concentrations of sterilant greater than 600 mg/L to sterilize
medical devices, and the term ``Reduced/Optimized EtO Concentration
cycle'' is used to refer to an EtO cycle that utilizes concentrations
of sterilant significantly below 600 mg/L to sterilize medical devices.

A. Participation

    Up to nine sterilization providers are eligible to participate in
this voluntary EtO Pilot Program. The pilot program is limited to
selected sterilization providers that follow the procedures set forth
in section I.B and that also meet the following selection qualities:
    1. Be a sterilization provider of a single-use device that is
provided sterile;
    2. Be in good compliance standing with the Agency;
    3. Have an approved fixed chamber EtO sterilization process for the
device in an existing PMA; and
    4. Be proposing one of the following changes:
    a. A change from a Conventional EtO cycle at an existing PMA-
approved sterilization site to a Conventional EtO cycle at a different
site for the same sterilization provider (including EtO chamber changes
within the same sterilization site);
    b. A change from a Conventional EtO cycle at an existing PMA-
approved sterilization site to a Reduced/Optimized EtO Concentration
cycle at the same site for the same sterilization provider; or
    c. A change from a Conventional EtO cycle at an existing PMA-
approved sterilization site to a Reduced/Optimized EtO Concentration
cycle at a different site for the same sterilization provider.
    Sterilization processes that include cycle parameters (e.g.,
increased temperature, pressure, humidity) outside validated tolerances
that may impact device specifications, device performance, EtO
residuals, biocompatibility or toxicology from the approved PMA device
are outside the scope of the EtO Pilot Program. For site changes from a
Conventional EtO cycle at an existing site to a Conventional EtO cycle
at a different site (including EtO chamber changes within the same
sterilization site) described in 4a above, the sterilization validation
activities for the new cycle should be conducted in accordance with the
validation activities in the manufacturer's approved PMA to be eligible
for this pilot program. For changes from a Conventional EtO cycle to a
Reduced/Optimized EtO Concentration cycle described in 4b and 4c above,
the sterilization validation activities for the new cycle should
conform to the FDA recognized consensus standard ISO 11135: 2014
``Sterilization of health care products--Ethylene oxide--Requirements
for development, validation and routine control of a sterilization
process for medical devices'' to be eligible for this pilot program.
Participants who do not meet these criteria will be deemed ineligible
for the EtO Pilot Program.
    The following are outside the scope of the EtO Pilot Program and
are inappropriate for inclusion in this program:
    1. Reusable devices, reprocessed single-use devices, or devices
that are provided non-sterile.
    2. Sterilization providers that do not have an approved fixed
chamber EtO sterilization process for the device in an existing PMA.
    3. Changes in contract sterilization providers or addition of a new
sterilization provider using a sterilization process not approved in an
existing PMA.
    4. Changes to device design, specifications, or materials.
    5. Packaging changes.
    6. Load configuration/composition changes.
    7. Sterilization processes used only for intermediate processing
prior to final device assembly.
    8. Devices with alternate sterility assurance levels other than
10-6.
    9. Devices with specialized requirements for biocompatibility or
sterilant residual compatibility that differ from ISO 10993-7
``Biological evaluation of medical devices--Part 7: Ethylene oxide
sterilization residuals.''

B. Procedures

    While the sterilization provider serves as the primary participant
of the EtO Pilot Program, FDA anticipates that close collaboration
between sterilization providers and PMA holders will be necessary to
ensure the success of the program. Accordingly, the procedures for
sterilization providers and PMA holders are set forth below.
1. Procedures for Sterilization Providers
    To be considered for the voluntary EtO Pilot Program, a
sterilization provider should submit the following information in a
Master File for the Agency's review with a cover sheet clearly
indicating ``Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Master File Pilot Program''
in the subject heading:
    a. Name, address, and FDA Establishment Identification (FEI) number
of the proposed sterilization facility.
    b. List of PMA device(s) to be sterilized (identified by
manufacturer, trade name, model number, and PMA number) and letter of
authorization from each PMA holder for each identified device.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ List of device(s) should reflect known devices to be
sterilized at the time of submission of the Master File. Subsequent
revisions to the list of device(s) should be submitted as an
amendment to the Master File.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Clear identification of all responsibilities of the
sterilization facility and the device manufacturer.
    d. Complete description of all sterilization validation information
\5\ used to support validation of the PMA device(s) under the proposed
EtO sterilization process including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sterilization providers may wish to refer to ISO 11135:2014
for information regarding sterilization validation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. A risk analysis with identified risk mitigation measures to
address any risks that may impact the PMA approved device with respect
to its product parameters or safety and effectiveness profile.
    ii. Installation Qualification, Operational Qualification, and
Performance Qualification methodology.
    iii. Clear, detailed product definition, along with a documented
procedure for determining whether a device meets the product
definition, or confirmation that the product definition has not
differed from the approved PMA.
    iv. All reports, protocols and process summaries presented in an
easily understandable template that supports incorporation of the PMA
device to be

sterilized in its defined package and load configuration.
    v. The process capability for the EtO sterilization process.
    vi. Identification and explanation of common potential protocol
deviations, along with proposed mitigation of potential deviations. The
Master File should also include a strategy to address any deviations
that may be subject to differences of opinion regarding safety and
effectiveness between FDA and the sterilization facility and any
deviations not addressed in the Master File.
    vii. Identification and explanation of management structure and
involvement for process and facility review.
    viii. Installation and operational requalification schedule to
support continuous process effectiveness.
    ix. A structured program and schedule for independent audits and
monitors.
    e. The sterilization facility's inspectional history and history of
compliance with applicable regulations (including, but not limited to,
requirements under 21 CFR parts 820 and part 814).
    For more information on Master Files, see FDA's website: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-approval-pma/master-files.
    Upon receipt of a Master File containing the above information, FDA
will determine eligibility in the pilot program by evaluating whether
the criteria outlined in sections I.A and I.B.1. above have been met,
and provide written feedback that either accepts the Master File into
the EtO Pilot Program, or which rejects the Master File as not eligible
for the pilot program. FDA intends to review the information
expeditiously and make a decision within 60 days when possible. If a
Master File is rejected from the program, the written feedback will
identify the reasons the Master File was determined to be ineligible
for the program. FDA intends to work interactively with the sponsor to
address any deficiencies with the information provided in the Master
File.
    Sterilization providers (i.e., Master File holders) that are
accepted into the pilot program should submit amendments to their
Master File every 6 months with information on any process changes or
new devices or PMA submissions brought into the program to maintain
participation in the pilot program. If there are no modifications or
changes, this should be stated in the amendment. If a sterilization
provider is accepted into the pilot program or does not maintain
participation, they should notify PMA holders for which they granted a
right of reference to the Master File.
2. Procedures for PMA Holders
    For sterilization providers to be considered for the voluntary EtO
Pilot Program, PMA holders affected by a sterilization provider's
participation in this program should use the following procedures. As
an alternative to the submission of a PMA supplement under Sec.
814.39(a) and (e), FDA will consider permitting PMA holders to
reference the existing Master File in a postapproval report to the
Agency with a cover sheet clearly indicating ``Periodic Report for
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Master File Pilot Program'' in the subject
heading. The postapproval report should contain the following
information in lieu of the information in 21 CFR 814.84(b)(2)-(4):
    a. Name, address, and FDA FEI number of the proposed sterilization
facility.
    b. Master File number in which the referenced sterilization
procedures are described, with signed right of reference from the
Master File holder.
    c. List of device(s) to be sterilized (identified by manufacturer,
trade name, model number, and PMA number).
    Upon receipt of a postapproval report containing the above
information, FDA will advise PMA holders of whether the postapproval
report is permitted as an alternate submission under Sec.  814.39(a)
and (e). Additionally, FDA will notify the PMA holder of whether the
PMA, identified devices, and referenced Master File are eligible for
the sterilization provider's participation in the program. If the PMA
is not eligible for the sterilization provider's participation in the
pilot program, FDA will notify the PMA holder of the reasons for
rejection.
    This Pilot Program does not otherwise remove or replace any
requirements, such as, but not limited to, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, under parts 820 or 814. It is the manufacturer's
responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and
regulations administered by FDA.
    During this voluntary EtO Pilot Program, CDRH staff intends to be
available to answer questions or concerns that may arise. The EtO Pilot
Program participants may comment on and discuss their experiences with
the Center.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice 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. 3501-3521). The
collections of information in part 820, regarding the Quality System
regulations, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073. The
collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding
Premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0231.

III. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES), and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. FDA, ``Ethylene Oxide Sterilization for Medical Devices,''
available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/ethylene-oxide-sterilization-medical-devices.
    2. FDA, ``Statement on Concerns with Medical Device Availability
Due to Certain Sterilization Facility Closures,'' available at:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-concerns-medical-device-availability-due-certain-sterilization-facility-closures.
    3. FDA, ``FDA Innovation Challenge 1: Identify New Sterilization
Methods and Technologies,'' available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/fda-innovation-challenge-1-identify-new-sterilization-methods-and-technologies.
    4. FDA, ``FDA Innovation Challenge 2: Reduce Ethylene Oxide
Emissions,'' available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/fda-innovation-challenge-2-reduce-ethylene-oxide-emissions.
    5. FDA, ``November 6 to 7, 2019: General Hospital and Personal
Use Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting
Announcement,'' available at: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/november-6-7-2019-general-hospital-and-personal-use-devices-panel-medical-devices-advisory-committee.
    6. FDA, ``PMA Supplements and Amendments,'' available at:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-approval-pma/pma-supplements-and-amendments.

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25631 Filed 11-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 9/ 26/ 03 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Triethylene Glycol Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations TO: Jack Housenger, Associate Division Director Antimicrobial Division ( 7510C)

FROM: Sid Abel, Chief Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Summary This memorandum transmits an assessment of the estimated environmental concentrations of triethylene glycol from use as an active ingredient ( indoor use) and from agricultural and nonagricultural ( outdoor) uses. Based on a series of " what if" approaches, the estimated environmental concentrations of triethylene glycol in surface water would not likely exceed a peak ( 24 hour time averaged) concentration of 885 ppb or an annual average ( single year) concentration of 29 ppb. Estimated concentrations in ground water would not likely exceed 106 ppb.

Approach to the Assessment The environmental fate information, which formed the bases of the inputs to the modeling, were obtained from readily available open literature data. Based on a review of the information, triethylene glycol ( TEG) is miscible in water, mobile in soils and stable to abiotic degradation hydrolysis and soil and aquatic photolysis. Biodegradation is expected to proceed rapidly in surface waters based on a number of River Dye away tests ( complete mineralization between 7 and 11 days) and will degrade in soils in days ( primary degradation) to weeks ( complete mineralization) based sludge innoculum studies and predictions of ready biodegradability. The use of sludge innoculum data as a surrogate for terrestrial soil metabolism is subject to considerable uncertainty because sludge innoculums tend to be acclimated to the introduction of organic substances more so than soils and the biomass on a per volume basis tends to be greater. In light 2 of these uncertainties, data reported for the mineralization of TEG in sludge innoculums were assigned an uncertainty factor of 3 time the estimated value to account for media differences. This adjustment factor in conjunction with the use of a mineralization time rather than a half life is likely to bound the upper end of the potential soil half life, thus, maintain a reasonble yet conservative assessment.

Application rates were not available for indoor or outdoor uses, although percentages of formulations were. To assess the potential concentrations of TEG in surface and ground water, application rates of 1 lb/ acre and 10 lbs/ acre were assessed. Through experience, the Lower Toxicity Pesticide Chemical FOCUS Group ( formerly the Inerts FOCUS Group) has concluded that with rare exceptions, inert compounds are not applied at rates greater than 10 pound per acre. Therefore, assessing TEG at a maximum of 10 lbs/ acre is considered a reasonable high end exposure scenario. Aerial application of TEG is assumed although it is unlikely to be used in spray applications where a ultra fine droplet size is used due to its vapor pressure.

The FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST) was used to estimate concentrations of TEG at the intake of a community water system. SCI GROW was used to estimate concentrations of TEG in shallow ground water drinking water sources. The environmental fate inputs for TEG are presented in Table 1. The half life of TEG on soils was assumed to be equal to the highest observed time for mineralization ( 95 % of total applied) of approximately 28 days. In addition, an uncertainty factor of 3 times the mineralization time was applied to account for the differences in media ( soils vs. sludge). The aerobic aquatic metabolism half life was modeled at 7 and 11 days. These time are equivalent to the time to complete mineralization rather than a true half life which will introduce additional conservatism in the assessment. Raw data were not available to determine an actual half life from the River Dye away studies.

Table 1. FIRST Input Parameters for Triethylene Glycol Parameter Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Application Rate/ Number 1/ 1 1/ 1 10/ 1 10/ 1 Soil Koc 10 10 10 10 Water Solubility ( mg/ L) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Hydrolysis Half life ( days) stable stable stable stable Photolysis half life ( days) stable stable stable stable Soil Metabolism Half life ( days) 84 84 84 84 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life ( days) 11 7 11 7 Table 2 provides the estimated environmental concentrations from the outdoor uses of TEG. Estimated exposures from indoor use of TEG as the active ingredient and/ or as an inert ingredient are unlikely to result in surface water concentrations greater those from outdoor uses. Releases to wastewater treatment plants are expected to be minimally removed because of the 3 lack of residence time ( hours). Predicted removal efficiencies do not exceed 10 percent of the amount released. Estimated groundwater concentrations are provided in Table 2 as well.

Table 2. FIRST and SCI GROW Estimated Environmental Concentrations ( ppb)

Model Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 FIRST Peak 88.5 88 885 880 Annual Average 2.9 1.9 29 19 SCI GROW 10.6 10.6 106 106


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18015]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-67-000, Docket No. QF19-1082-001, Docket No. QF19-
1083-001, Docket No. QF19-1084-001]

Michael Eisenfeld, James Neidhart, Jeffrey Neidhart, Steven Bair,
Neil Tribbett, Jerry Knutson, Victoria Slikkerveer, Crystal Williams,
The Coliseum, Inc., David Fosdeck, Stephen Ellison, Erin Hourihan, and
Vote Solar; Notice of Petition for Enforcement

    Take notice that on April 19, 2019, pursuant to section
210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA), Michael Eisenfeld, James Neidhart, Jeffrey Neidhart, Steven
Bair, Neil Tribbett, Jerry Knutson, Victoria Slikkerveer, Crystal
Williams, The Coliseum, Inc., David Fosdeck, Stephen Ellison, Erin
Hourihan, and Vote Solar (together, Petitioners) filed a Petition for
Enforcement (petition), requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) initiate an enforcement action against the City
of Farmington, New Mexico, d/b/a Farmington Electric Utility System to
remedy their alleged improper implementation of PURPA, all as more
fully explained in their petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioners.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 10, 2019.

    Dated: April 23, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08554 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 66283]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-222-000]

EnerSmart Mesa Heights BESS LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EnerSmart Mesa Heights BESS LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 17, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 28, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23934 Filed 11-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10760-10765]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88243; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-011]

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

February 19, 2020.
    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 February 6, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to (1) amend
certain SPX fees, (2) amend the standard transaction fee for Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders in Underlying Symbol List A,
(3) amend certain VIX fees, (4) adopt fee codes for waived linkage
transactions, (5) re-adopt the Clearing Trading Permit Holder position
re-assignment rebate, (6) clarify that Network Access Ports will be
available for physical connections to PULSe through February 29, 2020,
and (7) reduce the rebate under the GTH SPX/SPXW LLM program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
February 3, 2020 (SR-CBOE-2020-008). On February 4, 2020, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CBOE-2020-009. On
February 6, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Fees
Standard Transaction Fees
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt modest fee increases for SPX
and SPXW transactions. With respect to Customer orders (capacity ``C'')
in SPX and SPXW, the Exchange proposes to increase transaction fees by
$0.01 per contract. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to
increase Customer transaction fees for SPX/SPXW orders with a premium
of (1) $0.00-$0.10 and $0.11-$0.99 from $0.35 per contract to $0.36 per
contract and (2) $1.00 or more from $0.44 per contract to $0.45 per
contract. The Exchange next proposes to increase transaction fees for
Broker-Dealer (capacity ``B''), Joint Back-Office (capacity ``J''),
Non-Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') Market-Maker (capacity ``N''), and
Professional (capacity ``U'') orders in SPX and SPXW from $0.40 per
contract to $0.42 \4\ per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes to adopt new fee code BT for Non-
Customer, Non-Market-Maker SPX and SPXW orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale
    The Exchange proposes to amend its sliding scale for Market-Maker
transaction fees in SPX and SPXW (``SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding
Scale''). Currently, Market-Makers' transaction fees in SPX and SPXW
are determined by their average monthly contracts in SPX and SPXW. The
SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale currently provides for five tiers.
The Exchange proposes to increase the transaction fees under Tiers 4
and 5 of the SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale by $0.01 per contract
(and thereby lessen the current discount). More specifically, the
Exchange proposes to increase the transaction rate under Tier 4 \5\
from $0.22 per contract to $0.23 per contract, and the transaction rate
under Tier 5 \6\ from $0.20 per contract to $0.21 per contract. The
Exchange believes that

notwithstanding the proposed transaction fee increase under Tiers 4 and
5, the SPX Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will continue to provide
incremental incentives for Market-Makers to reach the highest tier
level and encourage trading of SPX options, as it continues to provide
progressively lower rates if increased volume thresholds in SPX
(including SPXW) options are attained during a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The volume threshold for Tier 4 is 9.00%-$15.00%.
    \6\ The volume threshold for Tier 5 is above 15.00%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPXW Execution Surcharge
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Execution Surcharge for SPXW
(``SPXW Surcharge''). Currently, the Exchange assesses a SPXW Surcharge
of $0.10 per contract for non-Market-Maker orders in SPXW that are
executed electronically (with some exceptions).\7\ The Exchange
proposes to increase the Execution Surcharge for SPXW to $0.13 per
contract. The Exchange notes the proposed SPXW Surcharge is still less
than the Execution Surcharge assessed for SPX transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 21.
    \8\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--Underlying
Symbol List A, Execution Surcharge, SPX only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPX Index License Surcharge
    The Exchange proposes to increase the Index License Surcharge Fee
for SPX (including SPXW) (the ``SPX Surcharge'') from $0.16 per
contract to $0.17 per contract. The Exchange licenses from S&P Dow
Jones Indices (``SPDJI'') (the ``SPDJI License'') the right to offer an
index option product based on the S&P 500 index (that product being SPX
and other SPX-based index option products). In order to offset the
costs associated with the SPDJI License, the Exchange assesses the SPX
Surcharge. The Exchange therefore proposes to increase the SPX
Surcharge from $0.16 per contract to $0.17 per contract in order to
offset more of the costs associated with the SPX license.
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Fees
    The Exchange proposes to increase the standard transaction fee for
Clearing Trading Permit Holders and for Non-Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Affiliates (``Firms'') (capacities ``F'' and ``L'',
respectively) in Underlying Symbol List A \9\ (excluding VIX) by $0.01.
Specifically the Exchange proposes to increase the fee from $0.25 per
contract to $0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Underlying Symbol List A currently includes OEX, XEO, RUT,
RLG, RLV, RUI, UKXM, SPX (includes SPXw) and VIX. See Cboe Options
Fees Schedule, Footnote 34.
    \10\ The Exchange assesses $0.18 per contract for customer ETF
orders that are >=100 contracts, and customer orders in multi-listed
index products. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A.
    \11\ The Exchange does not assess a fee for customer ETF orders
that are <100 contracts or for customer orders in equity options.
See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All Products Excluding
Underlying Symbol List A.
    \12\ The Exchange assesses a $0.04 per contract fee for customer
XSP orders. See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--All Products
Excluding Underlying Symbol List A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIX Fees
    The Exchange next proposes to amend standard Customer (capacity
``C'') transaction fees for VIX transactions. First the Exchange
proposes to decrease certain VIX transaction fees, adopt separate fees
for simple versus complex VIX transactions, and adopt a new fee for VIX
orders with a premium of $2.00 or more, along with the noted fee codes,
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposed
             Current premium                     Proposed premium            Current         Proposed simple fees     Fee code   complex fees   Fee code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$0.10..............................  $0.00-$0.10.................           $0.10  No change..................         CV          $0.05         CZ
$0.11-$0.99..............................  $0.11-$0.99.................            0.25  No change..................         CW           0.17       DA
Greater than $1.00.......................  $1.00-$1.99.................            0.45  $0.40......................         CX           0.30       DB
N/A......................................  $2.00 and above.............             N/A  $0.45......................         CY           0.45        DC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reduce fees for Customer simple orders
with a premium between $1.00-$1.99 to incentivize the sending of more
orders within this premium range. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to
adopt reduced fees for Customer complex VIX orders in order to
encourage the sending of additional complex VIX orders. The Exchange
did not believe it was necessary to assess different fees for simple
and complex VIX orders with a premium of $2.00 or greater. The Exchange
notes that Customer VIX orders with a premium of $2.00 or greater
account for a very small percentage of overall VIX trading.
Linkage Waiver
    The Exchange proposes to adopt fee codes for linkage transactions
for which away transaction fees are waived. More specifically, the
Exchange currently provides that it will not pass through or otherwise
charge customer orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that
were originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor
through an Exchange[hyphen]sponsored terminal (e.g. a PULSe
Workstation). Currently, this waiver is implemented manually. Beginning
February 3, 2020, this waiver will be automated and the Exchange
therefore proposes to adopt specific fee codes for such transactions.
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following fee codes
for customer orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that were
originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor through
an Exchange-sponsored terminal:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fee Code                                              Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TD........................  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX,          \10\ $0.18
                             EDGX, MERC, MIAX, PHLX,
                             >=100 contracts, ETF.
TE........................  Routed to AMEX, BOX, BX,           \11\ 0.00
                             EDGX, MERC, MIAX, PHLX,
                             <100 contracts ETF, Equity.
TF........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.18
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, >=100 contracts ETF,
                             Penny.
TG........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.18
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, >=100 contracts ETF,
                             Non-Penny.
TH........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.00
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, <100 contracts ETF,
                             Equity, Penny.
TI........................  Routed to ARCA, BZX, C2,                0.00
                             ISE, GMNI, EMLD, PERL,
                             NOMX, <100 contracts ETF,
                             Equity, Non-Penny.
TS........................  Routed, Index...............            0.18
TX........................  Routed, XSP, originating on        \12\ 0.04
                             Exchange-sponsored terminal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the proposed fee codes do not represent a
substantive change, but are being adopted merely in light of the
Exchange's automation of a current waiver.
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Position Re-Assignment Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a rebate for transaction fees
assessed to a Clearing Trading Permit Holder who, as a result of a
trade adjustment on any business day following the original trade, re-
assigns a position established by the initial trade to a different
Clearing Trading Permit Holder. In such a circumstance, the Exchange
will rebate, for the party for whom the position is being re-assigned,
that party's transaction fees from the original transaction as well as
the transaction in which the position is re-assigned. In all other
circumstances, including corrective transactions, in which a
transaction is adjusted on any day after the original trade date,
regular Exchange fees will be assessed. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rebate is not novel. Indeed, the Exchange's Fees Schedule had
included the proposed rebate prior to the migration to a new billing
system on October 7, 2019, but had eliminated the rebate upon
migration.\13\ After further evaluation, the Exchange now wishes to re-
adopt the proposed rebate. The Exchange lastly notes that because the
Exchange may not always be able to automatically identify these
situations, in order to receive a rebate, the Fees Schedule will also
provide that a written request in a form and manner prescribed by the
Exchange must be submitted within 3 business days of the original
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 87303 (October
15, 2019), 84 FR 56276 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network Access Ports
    By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a TPH or non-
TPH to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's
servers are located. Prior to migration of its trading platform to a
new system on October 7, 2019, the Exchange utilized Network Access
Ports for these physical connections to the Exchange. Upon migration,
the TPHs and non-TPHs had the option to alternatively elect to connect
to Cboe Options via new latency equalized Physical Ports. The Exchange
had noted in its Fees Schedule that through January 31, 2020, Cboe
Options market participants would continue to have the ability to
connect to Cboe Options' trading system via the current Network Access
Ports. The Exchange notes that all Network Access Ports have been
decommissioned as of January 31, 2020, with the exception of a couple
Network Access Ports used solely to connect to PULSe. The Exchange
notes that although the new latency equalized Physical Ports became
available on October 7, 2019, the new Physical Ports were not
originally able to be utilized to send orders to PULSe. Accordingly,
users who wished to route orders to PULSe via the Exchange's physical
ports had to maintain and use a legacy Network Access Fee Port and
could not use any of the new Physical Ports for such purpose. The
Exchange notes that although the new Physical Ports are now able to be
used to connect to PULSe, a couple of TPHs have not yet made the
transition from the Exchange's legacy Network Access Ports to the new
Physical Ports for purposes of connecting to PULSe. As such, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to clarify that Network
Access Ports will be available through February 29, 2020 to connect to
PULSe. The fee waiver for Network Access Ports used solely to access
PULSe will continue to remain in place.
GTH SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program
    Pursuant to the Fees Schedule, a LMM in SPX/SPXW will receive a
pro-rata share of a compensation pool for SPX equal to $15,000 times
the number of LMMs appointment in SPX and if the LMM meets the
heightened quoting standard described below for SPXW, the LMM will
receive an additional pro-rata share of a compensation pool for SPXW
equal to $15,000 times the number of LMMs in that class (for a total of
$30,000 per month for meeting the standard for both SPX and SPXW) if
the LMM(s) provide continuous electronic quotes that meet or exceed the
following heightened quoting standards in at least 99% of each of SPX
and SPXW series 90% of the time in a given month during GTH:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Premium                                 Expiring                Near term               Mid term                Long term
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              7 days or less         8 days to 60 days      61 days to 270 days     271 days or greater
                          Level                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Width       Size        Width       Size        Width       Size        Width       Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0-$5.00................................................       $0.50          10       $0.40          25       $0.60          15       $1.00          10
$5.01-$15.00............................................        2.00           7        1.60          18        2.40          11        4.00           7
$15.01-$50.00...........................................        5.00           5        4.00          13        6.00           8       10.00           5
$50.01-$100.00..........................................       10.00           3        8.00           8       12.00           5       20.00           3
$100.01-$200.00.........................................       20.00           2       16.00           5       24.00           3       40.00           2
Greater Than $200.00....................................       30.00           1       24.00           3       36.00           1       60.00           1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A GTH LMM in SPX/SPXW is not currently obligated to satisfy the
heightened quoting standards described in the table above. Rather, an
LMM is eligible to receive the rebate if they satisfy the heightened
quoting standards above. The Exchange now proposes to amend the rebate
available to LMM(s) under the program. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate the current compensation pool structure and
reduce a straight rebate per product per LMM. More specifically, the
Exchange proposes to provide that if a GTH SPX/SPXW LMM meets the
proposed heightened quoting standard described above, it will receive
$10,000 per product. As is the case today, SPX/SPXW GTH LMM(s) will
still not be obligated to satisfy the amended heightened quoting
standard. The Exchange believes the program, as amended, will continue
to encourage SPX/SPXW GTH LMM(s) to provide liquidity in SPX/SPXW
during GTH. Additionally, the Exchange notes that a SPX/SPXW GTH LMM
may need to undertake expenses to be able to quote at a significantly
heightened standard in SPX/SPXW, such as purchase more logical
connectivity based on its increased capacity needs.

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate (1) the example of how the
compensation pool works as it is no longer necessary given the
elimination of the compensation pool structure, and (2) obsolete
language regarding how the program was billed for October 2019.
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.\14\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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, and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed increases to Customer SPX
transaction fees are reasonable as the proposed increases are modest
and modifies fees that have not been otherwise amended in well over 10
years.\17\ The Exchange notes the proposed fees are also in line with
customer transaction fees assessed in other index products.\18\
Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed fee increase for Broker-
Dealer, Joint Back-Office, Non-TPH Market-Maker and Professional SPX/
SPX orders is reasonable as it too is a modest increase to a fee that
has not been modified in over ten years.\19\ The Exchange notes the
proposed fee is still in line with transaction fees assessed in other
index products.\20\ The Exchange believes the proposed standard
transaction fee increases are also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the changes apply to similarly situated market
participants uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55193 (January 30,
2007) 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57191 (January 24, 2008) 73 FR
5611 (January 30, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-150).
    \18\ See e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, customer transaction fees.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55193 (January 30,
2007) 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111).
    \20\ See e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, Broker-Dealer, Joint Back-Office, Non-TPH
Market-Maker and Professional fees for RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the discounted
Market-Maker fees in Tiers 4 and 5 of the SPX Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale is reasonable because Market-Makers are still eligible to
receive discounted fees for satisfying the corresponding criteria
(albeit less of a discount). The Exchange believes that notwithstanding
the proposed transaction fee increase under Tiers 4 and 5, the SPX
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will continue to provide incremental
incentives for Market-Makers to reach the highest tier level and
encourage trading of SPX options, as it continues to provide
progressively lower rates if increased volume thresholds in SPX
(including SPXW) options are attained during a month. The Exchange also
believes the rebates, as amended, are still commensurate with the
difficultly level of satisfying the respective tier's criteria. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies uniformly to all Market-Makers.
    The Exchange believes amending the Execution Surcharge for SPXW
Surcharge is reasonable as such fee is still lower than the Execution
Surcharge for SPX transactions.\21\ Additionally, the proposed increase
helps to ensure that there is reasonable cost equivalence between the
primary execution channels for SPXW. More specifically, the SPXW
Surcharge was adopted to minimize the cost differentials between manual
and electronic executions, which is in the interest of the Exchange as
it must both maintain robust electronic systems as well as provide for
economic opportunity for floor brokers to continue to conduct business,
as they serve an important function in achieving price discovery and
customer executions.\22\ The Exchange believes the proposed change is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies uniformly
to all similarly situated market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table, Underlying
Symbol List A, which provides for a $0.21 per contract Execution
Surcharge for SPX orders.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71295 (January 14,
2014) 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing the SPX Surcharge is reasonable because the Exchange
still pays more for the SPX license than the amount of the proposed SPX
Surcharge (meaning that the Exchange is, and will still be, subsidizing
the costs associated with the SPX license). This increase is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased amount will be
assessed to all market participants to whom the SPX Surcharge applies.
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the standard Firm
transaction fee in Underlying Symbol List A (excluding VIX) orders is
reasonable as the proposed increase is modest and modifies a fee that
has not been amended in over 9 years.\23\ The Exchange notes the
proposed fees are also in line with customer transaction fees assessed
in other index products.\24\ The Exchange also notes that Firms
continue to have an opportunity to earn a discounted fee via the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee increase is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the change applies to Firms uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63701 (January 11,
2011) 76 FR 2934 (January 18, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-116).
    \24\ See, e.g., Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--
Underlying Symbol List A, customer transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next believes its proposed change to reduce certain
VIX transaction fees is reasonable as Customers will be paying lower
fees for such transactions. The Exchange notes the proposed changes to
VIX Customer transaction fees are designed to encourage the sending of
additional VIX orders, including complex orders. The Exchange notes the
proposed change is also in line with other fee programs that are
designed to incentivize the sending of complex orders to the Exchange.
For example, the Exchange provides higher rebates under the Volume
Incentive Program for complex orders as compared to simple orders.\25\
The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are also equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they apply to all Customers
uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Volume Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes adopting fee codes for waived linkage
transactions is reasonable and equitable because the Exchange believes
such fee codes provide further clarity in the Fees

Schedule and the fee codes do not amend the current linkage fees or fee
waiver. Rather, the Exchange is merely adopting fee codes in light of
the transition from manual processing of the current linkage waiver to
automated processing. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
fee codes allow TPHs to more easily validate the bills they receive
from the Exchange, thus alleviating potential confusion.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer a rebate when a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder re-assigns a position, as the Clearing
Trading Permit Holder may not have elected to take that position in the
first place (and may just have been erroneously listed as a party to
the transaction). The Exchange believes that this change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it is equitable to
rebate fees to a Clearing Trading Permit Holder that was assessed fees
for taking a position from a transaction to which that Clearing Trading
Permit Holder was not a party. Otherwise, the Exchange believes it is
equitable for a party that made an error reporting a transaction to be
responsible for paying the fees associated with making that error.
Further, the proposed changes will apply equally to all market
participants. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rebate is not
novel. Indeed, the Exchange's Fees Schedule had included the proposed
rebate prior to the migration to a new billing system on October 7,
2019, but had eliminated the rebate upon migration.\26\ After further
evaluation, the Exchange now wishes to re-adopt the proposed rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 87303 (October
15, 2019), 84 FR 56276 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to allow TPHs to continue to
utilize legacy Network Access Ports through February 29, 2020 is
reasonable as a few TPHs have not yet been able to transition from the
Network Access Ports to the new Physical Ports with respect to their
connection to PULSe. Any remaining Network Access ports would be
configured to only allow routing of orders to PULSe, The Exchange
believes updating the notes section for Network Access Ports provides
further clarity in the rules as to the availability of such ports. The
Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate obsolete language in the
notes section of the Network Access Ports also alleviates potential
confusion.
    The Exchange believes the amount of the amended rebate for SPX/SPXW
GTH LMMs ($10,000 per product) is reasonable because it continues to
provide a rebate (albeit a reduced rebate) for meeting the heightened
quoting standard and takes into consideration additional costs an LMM
may incur. Particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed amount is
such that it will still incentivize an appointed LMM to meet the GTH
quoting standards for SPX and SPXW, thereby protecting investors and
the public interest. Additionally, if an LMM does not satisfy the
heightened quoting standard, then it will simply not receive the
rebate. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only offer the rebate to SPX/SPXW LMMs because GTH
LMMs provide a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for
market participants to trade during GTH, which can lead to increased
volume, thereby providing a robust market. The Exchange also notes that
the GTH LMM may have added costs each month that it needs to undertake
in order to satisfy that heightened quoting standard (e.g., having to
purchase additional logical connectivity).

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.
First, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
changes as described above apply to all similarly situated TPHs in a
uniform manner. Additionally, while different fees and rebates are
assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these
different market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances. For example, Market-Makers, including Lead Market-Makers
play a crucial role in providing active and liquid markets in their
appointed products, thereby providing a robust market which benefits
all market participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and
regulatory requirements that other participants do not have. There is
also a history in the options markets of providing preferential
treatment to customers, as they often do not have as sophisticated
trading operations and systems as other market participants, which
often makes other market participants prefer to trade with customers.
Further, the Exchange fees and rebates, both current and those proposed
to be changed, are intended to encourage market participants to bring
increased volume to the Exchange (which benefits all market
participants), while still covering Exchange costs (including those
associated with the upgrading and maintenance of Exchange systems).
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. First, changes
relating to the Exchange's proprietary products only affect trading on
Cboe Options, as such products are exclusively listed on Cboe Options.
Next, the Exchange notes it operates in a highly competitive market. In
addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have numerous alternative venues that
they may participate on and director their order flow, including 15
options exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues. Based on publicly
available information, no single options exchange has more than 22% of
the market share of executed volume of options trades.\27\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
option order flow. 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.'' \28\ 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'. . . .''.\29\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to extend the above-mentioned fee waivers and
incentive programs impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (February 3, 2020) available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \29\ 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 \30\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \31\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-011 and should be submitted on
or before March 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03646 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 229 (Monday, November 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74734-74736]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4006; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-3]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Dover, VT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at West Dover,
VT as the Mt. Snow Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been
decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Deerfield Valley
Regional Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also would recognize the airport's name change.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg
Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-
647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-
2015-4006; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-3, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Deerfield
Valley Regional Airport, West Dover, VT.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2015-4006; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2015-4006; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-3.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Deerfield Valley Regional Airport,
West Dover, VT. Airspace reconfiguration to within an 11-mile radius of
the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mt. Snow
NDB, and cancelation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport. This action would also
recognize the airport's name change from Mt. Snow Airport to Deerfield
Valley Regional Airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71 --DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE VT E5 West Dover, VT [Amended]

Deerfield Valley Regional Airport, VT
    (Lat. 42[deg]55'58''N., long. 71[deg]26'09''W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
with an11-mile radius of Deerfield Valley regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 17, 2015.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-30184 Filed 11-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 2265]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01176]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85016; File No. SR-IEX-2018-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Modify the Resting Price of Discretionary Peg Orders

January 31, 2019.
    On November 30, 2018, the Investors Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
modify the resting price of discretionary orders. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
19, 2018.\3\ The Commission has received one comment on the
proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84820 (December 13,
2018), 83 FR 65186.
    \4\ See letter from Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principals
Traders Group to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated January 22,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it find such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 2, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates
March 19, 2019, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-IEX-2018-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01176 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60389-60390]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-31-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Power Company, The Dayton Power and Light Company,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
of Ohio Power Company, et al. for approval of a Transmission Asset
Exchange Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2855-023; ER11-2856-023; ER11-2857-023; ER10-
2488-015; ER10-2722-009; ER10-2787-007; ER12-2037-010.
    Applicants: Avenal Park LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Sun City Project LLC,
Oasis Power Partners, LLC, Eurus Combine Hills I LLC, Eurus Combine
Hills II LLC, Spearville 3, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Eurus
MBR Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2719-005.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NextEra Energy Transmission New
York, Inc. Errata to Compliance Filing to be effective 11/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1092-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in ER17-1092-
Variable Demand Curve and Scarcity Pricing to be effective 5/11/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1567-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Pursuant to the
November 9, 2017 Order in ER17-1567-000 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-210-001.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised Request for Stay of Action
Docket No. ER18-210-000 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-296-000.
    Applicants: Phibro Americas LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 11, 2017 Phibro Americas LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 12/8/17.
    Accession Number: 20171208-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-301-000.
    Applicants: Ormesa LLC.
    Description: Amendment to November 11, 2017 Ormesa LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 12/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20171201-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-425-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rev to OATT Att Q RE: FTR
Credit Requirements Reflecting RTEP Upgrades to be effective 2/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171211-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-426-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Dayton submits an Upgraded
Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 4850 to be effective 12/13/
2017.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-427-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Port Comfort Power IA
1st Amend & Restated to be effective 11/16/2017
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-428-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Guadalupe Valley
Electric Cooperative IA 1st Amend & Restated to be effective 12/7/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-429-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Pacific Wind
Development Interconnection Agreement to be effective 11/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-430-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-12-12_Revisions to
Attachment L and Module A Regarding Credit Provisions to be effective
3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-431-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Miami Fort, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Service Rate
Schedule Filings and Request for Expedited Action to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-432-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Zimmer, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Service Rate
Schedule Filings and Request for Expedited Action to be effective 1/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:
    Docket Numbers: QM18-6-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application of Basin Electric Power Cooperative to
Terminate Mandatory Purchase Obligation Under the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: QM18-7-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application of Basin Electric Power Cooperative to
Terminate Mandatory Purchase Obligation Under the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
    Filed Date: 12/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171212-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27367 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P