Notice of Filing:
EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]
INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
TEMPLATE:

[Monsanto Company]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from [Monsanto Company, EPA Company Number 524], [1300 I St., NW., Suite 450 East, Washington DC 20005] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for biochemical pesticide [LCO MOR116]. Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [Monsanto Company] has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [Monsanto Company] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

I. [Monsanto Company] Petition Summary

   	[Insert petition number]

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

	[Monsanto is seeking to establish a tolerance exemption in conjunction with registration applications for a manufacturing use product (MON 90510) and one end-use product containing the biochemical biopesticide active ingredient LCO MOR116.  Use as a seed treatment is proposed.]

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

      1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [LCO MOR116 is a synthetically-derived member of the lipo-chitooligosaccharide (LCO) chemical class, that are signaling molecules involved in the initiation of plant-microbe endosymbioses in an estimated 70-80% of land plants.   LCO compounds are designated by an oligomeric backbone of three to six β-1,4-linked N-acetyl-D-glucosamine residues that may be N-acylated at the nonreducing-terminal residue by a fatty acid such as cis-vaccenic acid or other fatty acyl chains with 14 to 26 carbons and may have substitutions such as methylfucosyl or fucosyl at the reducing terminal residue. The chemical names and CAS numbers for LCO MOR116 are as follows: D-Glucose, O-6-deoxy-2-O-methyl-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1-->6)-O-[O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy- ;CAS Registry Number: 163181-92-8 (Methylfucosyl form);
      D-Glucose, O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-O-[6-deoxy-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1-->6)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy- ; CAS Registry Number: 200068-90-2 (Fucosyl form)]
	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. [The proposed uses are anticipated to result in negligible and undetectable levels of residue in agricultural commodities in association with our requested uses.   Dietary exposure to exogenously applied LCO MOR116 and its degradation products is likely to be very limited due to the proposed very low use rates that are equivalent to the levels of LCO already found in the agricultural environment.]

	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [Analytical methods that are normally utilized for detection of compounds in crop plants are incapable of quantifying the negligible levels of LCO MOR116 that are predicted to be present in raw or processed agricultural commodities.  Even in the unlikely event that dietary exposure does occur associated with the requested uses, the demonstrated favorable toxicological profile for LCO MOR116 does not present a potential for hazard to humans or the environment. ]

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

	[LCOs and degradation products have low potential for toxicity. There are numerous enzymes in both plants and animals that degrade chitin (e.g., a LCO degradate) and metabolize lipids such as cis-vaccenic acid. In fact, N-acetylglucosamine, cis-vaccenic acid and fucose are natural components of human tissues and available toxicological information provides further evidence that these breakdown products of LCOs have low potential for toxicity. As such, the history of safe use data for LCOs is supported by the available toxicological information that indicates both the parent molecule and its metabolites are molecules with low potential for toxicity.  Acute toxicology data and a review of the relevant literature demonstrate a favorable toxicological profile for LCOs, regardless of the route and duration of exposure associated with the requested uses.

LCOs including LCO MOR116 have a low order of acute toxicity regardless of route of exposure (e.g., oral, dermal, or inhalation) and are not irritants or sensitizers.  Acute oral, dermal and inhalation studies conducted with a manufacturing use product containing LCO MOR116 did not result in effects even when tested at the limit dose. ]

D. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Biologically insignificant low dietary exposure to LCO MOR116 is anticipated due to the very low use rates that are equivalent to LCOs that occur in the agricultural environment; requested use patterns also present a very low potential for dietary exposure for all the proposed application types.]

	i. Food. [The proposed uses are anticipated to result in negligible and undetectable levels of residue in raw and processed agricultural commodities in association with our requested uses.   Dietary exposure to LCO MOR116 and its degradation products is predicted to be insignificant due to the proposed very low use rates that are equivalent to the levels of LCOs that occur in the agricultural environment and have a history of safe use and exposure.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Requested application rate of LCO MOR116 is 4 x10[-][6] g /A; this amount is within the range of the levels of LCO found in the environment.  Degradation of LCOs in plants and in the environment is predicted to occur rapidly due to the presence of enzymes in plants and the rhizosphere such as hydrolyases and chitinases and practical experience with the natural degradation of LCOs.  Levels of LCO MOR116 anticipated to occur in drinking water are negligible and not of concern.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The proposed use pattern will limit the potential for occupational exposure, as well as the low application rate and active ingredient concentration of the end use product (2.66 x 10[-5]%).  Mammals are not known to have the receptors present in plants to have a biologically meaningful interaction with LCOs.  Finally, along with the long history of safe use and exposure to LCOs, the acute toxicity tests conducted with our manufacturing use product containing LCO MOR116 demonstrate the lowest hazard classification possible, regardless of the route of exposure.]

E. Cumulative Effects

	[LCO MOR116 does not show a potential for hazard in association with the proposed uses, does not share a mechanism of toxicity with other compounds, has a history of safe use and exposure after lifetime exposures, and long-term toxicity tests with potential degradation products demonstrate no cumulative effects after chronic exposure.]

F. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [The available data and peer reviewed literature supports the conclusion that LCOs have a history of safe use/exposure (HOSU); members of this class of compounds are involved in plant-microbe symbiosis in an estimated 70-80% of land plants. Available toxicological information indicates that LCO MOR116, as well as the breakdown products of this biochemical biopesticide, have a low potential for toxicity.  Therefore, since LCOs exist in the environment and have a history of safe use, and worst-case predicted consumer exposure is extremely low, the proposed uses of the synthetically-derived LCO MOR116 as a seed treatment do not pose a hazard or a potential risk to any segment of the US population.]

	2. Infants and children. [Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or a tolerance exemption and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue."  The information provided in this petition and in the accompanying FIFRA section 3 registration submission demonstrates that the proposed uses of LCO MOR116 fully satisfy this standard.  This active ingredient and other members of the LCO class have a low potential for toxicity.]

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

	[LCOs like LCO MOR116 do not belong to a class of chemicals known for having adverse effects on the immune or endocrine system. No effects indicative of endocrine disruption have been observed in the literature and animals are not known to have receptors for LCOs that are found in plants, effectively leading to no biologically meaningful interaction of LCOs with receptors found in mammalian or non-target animals, including humans.]

H. Existing Tolerances

	[In the United States Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 180.910, a food use tolerance exemption for rhizobial inoculants in pesticide formulations has been issued.  These inoculants as a class, are generally capable of producing LCOs in situ. The concentration of the LCOs present in crops treated with rhizobia is roughly equivalent to the concentration in the agricultural environment to those anticipated from the proposed uses associated with this request for establishment of a tolerance exemption.  Therefore - somewhat indirectly - the tolerance exemption for rhizobial inoculants could be interpreted to include an exemption for rhizobially-produced LCOs.  In addition, a food use tolerance exemption for LCO SP104, which is structurally similar to LCO MOR116, has been established in the United States Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 180. Other than the indirect exemption for rhizobial inoculants and exemption for LCO SP104, there are no other tolerances or exemptions that have been granted for any other LCOs or LCO MOR116, as this is a new biochemical biopesticide active ingredient.]

I. International Tolerances

	[There are no Codex MRLs established for LCO MOR116 in food and feed items.]


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66271-66272]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23295]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0135; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0269; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0372;
EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0396; FRL-9953-10-Region 5]

Adequacy Status of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Columbus, Ohio
Areas and the Ohio and Indiana Portions of the Cincinnati Indiana-Ohio-
Kentucky Area Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation Requests and
Maintenance Plans for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Columbus, Ohio ozone nonattainment areas,
and the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati Indiana-Ohio-
Kentucky ozone nonattainment area are adequate for use in
transportation conformity determinations under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Ohio submitted redesignation

requests and maintenance plans for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and
Columbus areas on July 6, 2016 and June 16, 2016, respectively. Ohio
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati area on April 21, 2016. Indiana submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of
the Cincinnati area on February 23, 2016. As a result of our finding,
these areas must use their submitted MVEBs for future transportation
conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective October 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist,
Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
353-8777<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Background

    Today's notice is an announcement of a finding that we have already
made. On August 23, 2016, EPA sent letters to the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
transmitting our determination that the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs contained
in the redesignations and maintenance plans for the Cleveland and
Columbus, Ohio areas and Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati
area are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. These MVEBs
were announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site, and no
comments were submitted in response. The information is available at
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    The Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone nonattainment area consists of
Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit
Counties. The Columbus ozone nonattainment area consists of Delaware,
Fairfield, Franklin, Knox, Licking, and Madison Counties. The Indiana
portion of the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area consists of
Lawrenceburg Township (located within Dearborn County, Indiana). The
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area consists of Butler, Clermont,
Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties. For transportation conformity
purposes, the MVEBs for the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati
area are combined. The 2020 and 2030 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for
VOCs and NOX for the Indiana and Ohio portions of
Cincinnati, and the Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio areas are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2020 VOCs                       2030 VOCs
                      Area                        2020 NOX (tpd)       (tpd)      2030 NOX (tpd)       (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana and Ohio Portions of the Cincinnati--              30.79           30.00           16.22           18.22
 Indiana/Ohio/Kentucky Area.....................
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio....................           61.56           38.85           43.82           30.80
Columbus, Ohio..................................           99.54           50.66           85.13           44.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) means
that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in the
regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). As set forth above, EPA determined
that these MVEBs are adequate under the applicable standards set forth
in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate
from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: September 19, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-23295 Filed 9-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 16936]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-103-000.
    Applicants: Mechanicsville Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Mechanicsville Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200318-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-104-000.
    Applicants: Albemarle Beach Solar, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Albemarle Beach Solar,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200318-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1314-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance in EL16-49 and EL18-178,
Request for Waiver, Extended Comment Period to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200318-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1073-000.
    Applicants: SR Terrell, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/13/20.
    Accession Number: 20200313-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1343-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-19_SA 3446
GridLiance-EEI GIA (Unit 4) to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1344-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-19_SA 3450
GridLiance-MEP GIA to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5014.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1345-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-19_SA 3449
GridLiance-IPGC GIA to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1346-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-19_SA 3447
GridLiance-EEI GIA (Unit 5) to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1347-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-03-19_SA 3448
GridLiance-EEI GIA (Unit 6) to be effective 2/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1348-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-King Creek Wind Farm
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1349-000.
    Applicants: CNR Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff of
CNR Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1350-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment J--Municipal
Underground Surcharge Revision to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200319-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: RD20-5-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Supplement to March 11, 2020 Joint Petition of the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation and Texas Reliability
Entity, Inc. for Approval of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard
BAL-001-TRE-2 ? Primary.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/20.

    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: March 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06229 Filed 3-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66834-66835]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC23-15-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-516H) Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-516H, (Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff
Filings, Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff).

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC23-
4-000) by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For
user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-516H, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings, Pro
Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0303.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-516H information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: This information collection request pertains to a final
rule \1\ that, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA),\2\ requires respondents that are subject to 18 CFR 35.28 to
submit compliance filings within 120 days of the effective date of the
final rule that add a new Attachment M to their pro forma Open Access
Transmission Tariffs (OATTs). The effective date of the final rule is
March 14, 2022. The OATT compliance filing is due July 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 2244 (January 13, 2022).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC 516H: The regulation at 18 CFR 35.28, which pertains to non-
discriminatory open access transmission tariffs, applies to:
     Commission-jurisdictional public utilities that own,
control, or operate facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce; and
     Non-jurisdictional utilities that seek voluntary
compliance with jurisdictional transmission tariff reciprocity
conditions.
    In Order No. 881, the Commission added 18 CFR 35.28(c)(5) to
require any public utility that owns transmission facilities that are
not under the public utility's control to, consistent with the pro
forma OATT required by 18 CFR 35.28(c)(1), share with the public
utility that controls such facilities (and its Market Monitoring
Unit(s), if applicable):
    (i) Transmission line ratings for each period for which
transmission line ratings are calculated for such facilities (with
updated ratings shared each time ratings are calculated); and
    (ii) Written transmission line rating methodologies used to
calculate the transmission line ratings for such facilities provided
under subparagraph (i), above.
    Additionally, 18 CFR 35.28(c) requires each public utility
transmission provider to have on file with the Commission and adhere to
the Commission's pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). In
Order No. 881, the Commission added Attachment M of the Commission's
pro forma OATT to require each jurisdictional transmission provider to
maintain on the password-protected section of its OASIS page or on
another password-protected website a database of transmission line
ratings and transmission line rating methodologies. Such transmission
line ratings and transmission line rating methodologies are to be
calculated and provided by transmission owners. The database must
include a full record of all transmission line ratings, both as used in
real-time operations, and as used for all future periods for which
transmission service is offered. Additionally, Attachment M of the
Commission's pro forma OATT requires transmission providers, as the
regulated entities, to share transmission line ratings and
methodologies with any transmission provider(s) upon request and in a
timely manner.
    Type of Respondent: Transmission Owners.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: 3 The Commission estimates
the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual
                                                      estimated      Annual estimated number                              Total estimated burden hours &
      Area of modification           Number of        number of      of responses (column B x   Average burden hours &    total estimated cost (column D
                                    respondents     responses per           column C)            cost \1\ per response             x column E)
                                                      respondent
A.                                            B.                 C.                       D.   E.......................  F.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FERC-516H (Control No. 1902-0303)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission owners update             289 (TOs)                1                        289   176 hrs; $16,192........  50,864 hrs; $4,679,488.
 forecasts and ratings, and
 share transmission line ratings
 and facility ratings
 methodologies w/transmission
 providers and, if applicable,
 RTOs/ISOs & market monitors
 (Year 1 and Ongoing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for three positions involved in the reporting
  and recordkeeping requirements. These figures include salary (based on BLS data for May 2023, http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits
  (based on BLS data issued March 19, 2022, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are Manager (Code 11-0000 $106.33/hour), Electrical
  Engineer (Code 17-2071 $77.29/hour). The hourly cost for the reporting requirements ($91.81 = $92 rounded) is an average of the cost of a manager and
  engineer.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21259 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17487-17490]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0870; Product Identifier 2019-NM-125-AD; Amendment
39-19858; AD 2020-04-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-19-27
and AD 2014-16-12, which applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model
FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2018-19-27 and AD 2014-16-12 required
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. This AD retains those actions and requires revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. This AD was prompted by the FAA's determination that new
or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 4, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
November 13, 2018 (83 FR 50479, October 9, 2018).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet:
https://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0870.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0870; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2019-0154, dated July 3, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0154'') (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0870.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-19-27, Amendment 39-19428 (83 FR
50479, October 9, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-27''). AD 2018-19-27 applied to
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2018-19-27
required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. AD 2018-19-27 resulted from a determination
that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations were necessary. AD 2018-19-27 specified that accomplishing
the actions required by paragraph (g) of that AD terminated the
requirements of AD 2014-16-12, Amendment 39-17936 (79 FR 52187,
September 3, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-12''), but it did not supersede AD
2014-16-12. In addition, AD 2018-19-27 specified that accomplishing
paragraph (g) of that AD terminated the requirements of paragraph
(g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21,
2010) (``AD 2010-26-05''), for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes. This terminating provision of certain requirements of AD
2010-26-05 is included in this AD. This AD supersedes AD 2018-19-27 and
AD 2014-16-12, but does not supersede AD 2010-26-05.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2019 (84
FR 63827). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's determination that new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM
proposed to retain the actions required by AD 2018-19-27. The NPRM also
proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT
113877, Revision 12, dated November 2018, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX
Maintenance Manual. This service information describes instructions
applicable to airworthiness and safe life limitations.
    This AD also requires Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT
113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX
Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of November 13, 2018 (83 FR 50479,
October 9, 2018).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 173 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2018-19-27 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that the new revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per
operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from
operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this
action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate
maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s),
the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate
than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total
cost per operator for the new revision to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x
$85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-19-27, Amendment 39-19428
(83 FR 50479, October 9, 2018); and AD 2014-16-12, Amendment 39-17936
(79 FR 52187, September 3, 2014); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-04-22 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19858; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0870; Product Identifier 2019-NM-125-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 4, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2018-19-27, Amendment 39-19428 (83 FR
50479, October 9, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-27''); and AD 2014-16-12,
Amendment 39-17936 (79 FR 52187, September 3, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-
12'').
    (2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before January 15, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2018-19-27, with no changes. Within 90 days after November 13, 2018
(the effective date of AD 2018-19-27), revise the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the Dassault Falcon
2000EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance times for doing
the tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the
Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after
November 13, 2018, whichever occurs later; except for task number
52-20-00-610-801-01, the initial compliance time is within 24 months
after October 8, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-16-12). The
term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in
Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11,
dated November 2017, means total airplane landings. The term ``FH''
in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in Chapter 5-40,
Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November
2017, means total flight hours. The term ``FC'' in the ``First
Inspection'' column of any table in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, means
total flight cycles.

(h) Retained Provision: No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With a New
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2018-19-27, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 12, dated November 2018, of the
Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance
times for doing the tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40,
Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 12, dated November
2018, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
except for task number 52-20-00-610-801-01, the initial compliance
time is within 24 months after October 8, 2014 (the effective date
of AD 2014-16-12). The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection''
column of any table in the service information specified in this
paragraph means total airplane landings. The term ``FH'' in the
``First Inspection'' column of any table in the service information
specified in this paragraph means total flight hours. The term
``FC'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in the
service information specified in this paragraph means total flight
cycles. Doing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) New Provision: No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Certain Actions in AD 2010-26-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-19-27 are not
approved as AMOCs for this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2019-0154, dated July 3, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-
0154''), for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0870.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 4, 2020.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877,
Revision 12, dated November 2018, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX
Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 13, 2018 (83 FR 50479, October 9, 2018).
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877,
Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX
Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 1, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06469 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32688-32690]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55874; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Amend CBOE's Rules To Reflect the
Migration of Its TPF Technology Platform Over to the Existing
CBOEdirect Technology Platform

June 7, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``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 introduce a third trading
platform into its existing CBOEdirect system, ``Hybrid 3.0.'' The
Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on
February 15, 2007. The Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2

to the proposed rule change on April 13, 2007.\3\ The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on May 3, 2007.\4\ The Commission did
not receive any comments regarding the proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2 \ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3 \ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 1 and
the original filing in their entireties.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55674 (April 26, 2007),
72 FR 24639 (May 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    In 2003, CBOE introduced the Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'' or
``Hybrid System''), an electronic trading platform integrated with
CBOE's floor-based open-outcry auction market.\5\ Under CBOE's existing
rules, the Hybrid System currently supports two trading platforms: (i)
The original Hybrid Trading System, which is a trading platform that
allows individual Market-Makers to submit electronic quotes in their
appointed classes; and (ii) Hybrid 2.0, which is an enhanced trading
platform that allows remote quoting by authorized categories of
Exchange members. These two platforms operate on a technology system
that is referred to as the CBOEdirect trade engine. In addition to
these two platforms, prior to 2003 and through the present, CBOE has
also utilized its TPF mainframe system to support trading in its ``non-
Hybrid'' classes.\6\ Therefore, options classes currently may be
authorized by the Exchange to trade on the non-Hybrid, original Hybrid
Trading System or Hybrid 2.0 platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47959 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34441 (June 9, 2003).
    \6\ The three current non-Hybrid classes are options: on the S&P
100 Index--OEX; options on the S&P 500 Index--SPX; and options on
the Morgan Stanley Retail Index--MVR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has determined to migrate the trading programs operating on
its TPF mainframe system to the CBOEdirect trade engine. To accommodate
this changeover, CBOE has proposed to amend its Hybrid rules to
introduce a third trading platform into its existing CBOEdirect system,
called ``Hybrid 3.0,'' which incorporates certain aspects of both the
Hybrid Trading System and non-Hybrid platforms. The more significant
aspects of the proposal are outlined below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To incorporate Hybrid 3.0 into CBOE's existing Hybrid rules,
CBOE has proposed to define all references to ``Hybrid,'' ``Hybrid
System,'' and ``Hybrid Trading System'' in CBOE's rules to mean all
CBOE hybrid platforms, including Hybrid 3.0, unless otherwise
provided by a specific CBOE rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Quoting

    As proposed, the Hybrid 3.0 platform will allow a single electronic
quote, which will represent the aggregate Market Maker quoting interest
in each option series for the trading crowd (``Hybrid 3.0 crowd
quote''). This single quote will be generated from either an appointed
Designated Primary Market Maker (``DPM'') or Lead Market Maker
(``LMM''). In this way, Hybrid 3.0 will operate in a manner similar to
the existing non-Hybrid platform where an appointed DPM or LMM may
generate an automated quote for the trading crowd.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, the non-Hybrid platform allows for the use of an
Exchange-sponsored autoquote system. However, according to CBOE,
this functionality will not be available for Hybrid 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Hybrid 3.0, members of the trading crowd will be able to submit
manual quotes. Specifically, members of the trading crowd will be able
to verbalize manual quotes to be input into Exchange systems by quote
reporters for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'').\9\ The manual quote disseminated in Hybrid 3.0 classes will
be separate and additional to the Hybrid 3.0 crowd quote. If market
participants (which include in-crowd market makers) are eligible to
submit orders for entry into the electronic book, then the appropriate
Procedure Committee may determine to disable manual quotes.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Similar to the existing functionality for manual quotes in
non-Hybrid classes, in Hybrid 3.0 the Exchange's disseminated OPRA
quote will not distinguish between electronic and manual quotes but
members of the trading crowd will be able to distinguish between
electronic and manual quotes.
    \10\ A market participant is defined as a ``Market-Maker, a
Remote Market-Maker, an in-crowd DPM or LMM, an e-DPM with an
appointment in the subject class, and a floor broker or PAR Official
representing orders in the trading crowd.'' See CBOE Rule 6.45B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order Eligibility for Entry into Electronic Book

    In Hybrid 3.0, public customer orders are automatically eligible
for electronic book entry.\11\ Moreover, in Hybrid 3.0, the appropriate
Procedure Committee can determine, on a class by class basis, to allow
certain other types of orders into the electronic book, including
orders of market participants and broker-dealers.\12\ These eligibility
rules are the same as the existing rules for other Hybrid classes
except that, with respect to other Hybrid classes, market participants
are eligible to submit orders for entry into the electronic book
without the appropriate Procedure Committee's approval. The proposed
electronic book eligibility rules for Hybrid 3.0 are consistent with
current practices in CBOE's non-Hybrid classes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CBOE Rule 7.4(a)(1).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See CBOE Rule 6.8.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Automatic Execution of Incoming Orders

    Hybrid 3.0 proposes to permit automatic execution of non-broker-
dealer public customer orders. In addition, the appropriate Procedure
Committee may determine, on a class by class basis, to allow orders of
broker-dealers that are not market-makers or specialists on an exchange
who are exempt from the provisions of Regulation T of the Federal
Reserve Board pursuant to Section 7(c)(2) of the Act (``non-Market-
Maker or non-Specialist broker-dealers'') to be eligible for automatic
execution.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed changes to CBOE Rule 6.13(b)(i)(C)(i). This
process is consistent with the appropriate Procedure Committee's
ability to permit broker-dealer orders to be automatically executed
through the Exchange's Retail Automatic Execution System (``RAES'')
in CBOE's non-Hybrid Classes. See CBOE Rule 6.8.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Hybrid 3.0 classes, incoming orders that are eligible to
receive automatic execution will execute against public customer orders
in the electronic book. The remaining balance of the incoming order, if
any, may be (i) Represented in the electronic book provided such order
is eligible for book entry \15\ or (ii) if the order is not eligible
for book entry, it will route to PAR, BART, or to the order entry
firm's booth printer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Even if an order is eligible for book entry, the order
entry firm will have the discretion to have the remaining balance of
the eligible order route to PAR, BART, or to the order entry firm's
booth printer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the Hybrid 3.0 platform, automatic execution against quotes
(whether electronic or manual) will not be allowed.\16\ However, if the
electronic book price matches a manual quote, then automatic execution
will be permissible against public customer orders in the electronic
book.\17\ CBOE represented that, consistent with existing practices in
CBOE's non-Hybrid

Classes, the Exchange will apply similar firm quote surveillance
procedures in Hybrid 3.0 to monitor for compliance with members' firm
quote obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CBOE Rule 6.13. By comparison, currently in CBOE's non-
Hybrid Classes, orders may be eligible for automatic execution
against market maker quotes on RAES. See CBOE Rules 6.8 and 24.17.
The Exchange represents that the number of trades that occur on RAES
is minimal (approximately 1/10th of 1% of all volume occurs on
RAES).
    \17\ See proposed changes to CBOE Rule 6.43(b). For example, if
the electronic book is a $1.20 bid and the manual quote is at a
$1.20 bid, then the system will allow for automatic execution
against the $1.20 electronic book bid but not the $1.20 quote. In
addition, if the Hybrid 3.0 crowd quote matches the electronic book
price, automatic execution against public customer orders in the
book is permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Application of CBOE Rule 6.45B

    CBOE Rule 6.45B, which relates to the priority and allocation of
trades, will apply to trading in Hybrid 3.0 classes in the same way it
is applied to CBOE's existing Hybrid Trading System. For example,
multiple customer orders in the electronic book at the same price will
be ranked based on time priority pursuant to the priority methods set
forth in Rule 6.45B.\18\ Further, unlike CBOE's non-Hybrid classes,
Hybrid 3.0 will allow (i) Each Market-Maker in the trading crowd and
(ii) all floor brokers in the trading crowd (collectively referred to
as ``in-crowd market participants'' or ``ICMPs'') to trade against the
electronic book pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45B(c).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CBOE Rule 6.45B(a)(ii)(A)(1).
    \19\ This process is the same as for existing Hybrid classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 6.45B(d) currently governs the interaction of quotes when
they are locked (e.g., $1.00 bid--1.00 offer). Specifically, CBOE Rule
6.45B(d) provides that when the quotes of two Market-Makers interact
(i.e., ``quote lock''), either party has one second during which it may
move its quote without obligation to trade with the other party. If,
however, the quotes remain locked at the conclusion of one-second, the
quotes trade in full against each other. For quote locks in Hybrid 3.0
classes, the appropriate Procedure Committee will set the length of the
counting period, provided that the period shall not exceed ten
seconds.\20\ According to the Exchange, the proposed ten second
threshold is intended to provide additional flexibility for Market-
Makers to become acclimated with Hybrid 3.0.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed changes to CBOE Rule 6.45B(d).
    \21\ By comparison, the current quote lock timer for Hybrid and
Hybrid 2.0 classes may not exceed one second. See CBOE Rule
6.45B(d)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the time periods required for order exposure in
Interpretation .01 of Rule 6.45B (``Principal Transactions'') and
Interpretation .02 of Rule 6.45B (``Solicitation Orders''), CBOE has
proposed a minimum exposure time for Hybrid 3.0 classes, on a class by
class basis, to be at least three seconds but not to exceed thirty
seconds.\22\ According to CBOE, this extended time frame for exposure
will provide additional flexibility as ICMPs become more acclimated
with Hybrid 3.0.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed changes to CBOE Rule 6.45B.01 and 6.45B.02.
    \23\ By comparison, the current exposure period for Hybrid and
Hybrid 2.0 classes is at least three seconds. See CBOE Rule 6.45B.01
and 6.45B.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Opening Procedures

    Only the DPM or LMM responsible for generating the Hybrid 3.0 crowd
quote will be required to enter quotes as part of the opening rotations
in Hybrid 3.0 option classes. The DPM or LMM must enter opening quotes
in opening rotations that comply with the legal quote width
requirements of Rule 8.7(b)(iv), and if there is not a quote present in
a series that complies with the legal quote width requirements of Rule
8.7(b)(iv), then that series will not open.\24\ Additionally, Hybrid
3.0 will allow public customer, broker-dealer, Exchange Market-Maker,
away Marker-Maker and Specialist participation in the opening. Since
Hybrid 3.0 is a single quoter environment, these participants will not
be permitted to enter opening quotes in opening rotations but will be
permitted to directly enter opening orders in opening rotations in
Hybrid 3.0 classes.\25\ Further, similar to the rules for CBOE's non-
Hybrid classes, Hybrid 3.0 also proposes to allow special ``modified''
opening procedures for settlement in options on the Volatility
Indexes.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is consistent with the opening quote requirements in
CBOE's existing Hybrid classes that utilize CBOE's Hybrid Opening
System (``HOSS''). See CBOE Rule 6.2B.
    \25\ See proposed Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 6.2B. By
comparison, currently in non-Hybrid option classes (such as SPX and
OEX), public customers, Market-Makers and broker-dealers are not
able to directly participate in the opening rotations (for series
that utilize the Exhange's Rapid Opening System). For example,
Market-Makers who wish to participate on ROS in the opening rotation
in non-Hybrid option classes must submit orders through the LMM at
least ten minutes prior to the opening of trading pursuant to CBOE
Rules 6.2A and 24.13.
    \26\ See the ``Modified HOSS Opening Procedures'' in proposed
Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 6.2B. By comparison, non-Hybrid
option classes that utilize RAES and ROS have special procedures for
purposes of settlement in the volatility indexes called ``Modified
ROS Opening Procedures'' pursuant to Interpretation .03 to CBOE Rule
6.2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, as
amended, and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\27\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\
which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other
things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. The proposed rules for Hybrid 3.0 are similar to
existing rules applicable to trading in Hybrid and/or non-Hybrid
classes. The Commission believes that the proposed rules for the Hybrid
3.0 platform, including those pertaining to quoting, order eligibility
in the electronic book, automatic execution, order priority and
allocation, are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 thereto (File No. SR-CBOE-2006-101) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11366 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 164 (Monday, August 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52168-52170]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18501]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89596; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-078]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule To Adopt a New Fee Code Related to the Execution of
an Equity Leg of a Stock-Option Order

August 18, 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 August 10, 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe'') is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to
amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a new fee code related to the
execution of an equity leg of a stock-option order. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to adopt a new fee
code for the equity leg of a stock-option order, which orders would
yield fee code ``EP'', effective August 10, 2020. The Exchange also
proposes to amend the description of the existing fee for the equity
leg of a stock-option order, which yields fee code ``EQ'' and the notes
sections applicable to both fee codes EP and EQ noted in the fees
schedule.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share.\3\
Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no
single options exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-
shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or
discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade
on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. In response to competitive pricing, the Exchange,
like

other options exchanges, offers rebates and assesses fees for certain
order types executed on or routed through the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
(August 7, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stock-option orders are complex instruments that constitute the
purchase or sale of a stated number of units of an underlying stock or
a security convertible into the underlying stock coupled with the
purchase or sale of an option contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market and execute in the same manner as complex orders. Through this
functionality, the stock portions of stock-option strategy orders are
electronically communicated by the Exchange to a designated broker-
dealer (currently, Cowen is the only broker-dealer that may be
designated for this service), who then manages the execution of such
stock portions. In connection with the functionality, the Exchange
adopted a stock handling fee of $0.0010 per share for the processing
and routing by the Exchange of the stock portion of stock-option
strategy orders executed through those mechanisms.\4\ The purpose of
the stock handling fee is to cover the fees charges by the outside
venue that prints the trade, as well as assist in covering the
Exchange's costs in matching these stock-option orders against other
stock option orders on the complex book. Additionally, the Exchange
also largely passes through to Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') the
fees assessed to the Exchange by the designated broker (i.e., Cowen)
that manages the execution of these stock portions of stock-option
strategy orders. The fee schedule also provides for a cap of $50 per
execution for orders yielding fee code EQ, which aligns with how the
Exchange's only current designated broker-dealer (i.e., Cowen) applies
a cap to the execution management of the stock portion of stock-option
strategy orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67383 (July 10,
2012), 77 FR 41841 (July 16, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-063) (stating the
stock portions of stock-option strategy orders will be
electronically communicated by the Exchange to a designated broker-
dealer, who will then manage the execution of such stock portions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to reflect the
option of an additional designated broker-dealer, Penserra, to manage
the execution of the stock portion of a stock-option strategy order.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt fee code EP, which would
be applicable to equity leg orders whose executions are managed by
Penserra. Unlike Cowen, Penserra will not assess the Exchange fees for
managing the stock-portion of a stock-option order, but rather will
assess and bill its customers directly.\5\ Therefore, the Exchange does
not wish to assess the current stock handling fee which was adopted in
part to recoup the fees assessed to the Exchange by the Exchange's
current designated broker-dealer, Cowen. As such, the Exchange proposes
to make clear that stock-portions of stock-option strategy orders
managed by Penserra and yielding fee code EP will not be subject to a
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes it is possible Cowen directly charges
fees to customers in addition to the stock handling fee the Exchange
charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to modify the current notes section of
the Stock-Portion of Stock-Options Strategy Orders table. Particularly,
the notes section currently provides that the Exchange shall assess a
fee of $0.0010 per share for the stock portion, which Cboe Options must
route to an outside venue, of stock-option orders executed via the
Complex Order Auction (``COA''), the Complex Order Book (``COB''), AIM,
and SAM. The Exchange proposes to now clarify that this fee also
applies to the stock-component of a QCC with Stock Orders. The Exchange
notes that it made it clear that such fee would apply to these orders
when it adopted QCC with Stock Orders, but that it inadvertently did
not update the corresponding fees schedule and intends to do so now to
avoid potential confusion.\6\ The Exchange lastly proposes to modify
the description of existing fee code EQ to specify that it is
applicable to equity leg orders whose executions are managed by Cowen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83891 (August
20, 2018) 83 FR 42949 (August 24, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-058).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the requirements
of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) 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, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed change to adopt fee code
EP, which will assess no fee for stock portions of stock-option
strategy order executions managed by Penserra, is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposal is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposal is reasonable as market participants will not be
subject to a fee for the execution of the stock-portion of a stock-
option order handled by one of the Exchange's designated broker-
dealers, Penserra. The Exchange believes it's appropriate to not assess
a fee for orders managed by Penserra as compared to those managed by
Cowen, as Penserra will directly charge is customers for the stock
portion of stock-option strategy orders and not charge the Exchange,
unlike Cowen who does not directly charge market participants, but
rather charges the Exchange, which passes that fee through to
customers. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change applies to all
TPHs and all TPHs that execute stock-option orders in the complex book
will have the option to utilize Penserra to manage the execution of the
stock portion of its stock-option strategy orders.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed description
modification to existing fee code EQ will clarify that such executions
yielding fee code EQ are managed by Cowen. The Exchange believes the
amendment to the current notes section clarifies that the stock
handling fee also applies to the stock-portion of QCC with Stock
Orders, which reduces potential confusion and maintains clarity in the
rules, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest.

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

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

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed change will apply uniformly to the stock portions of all
market participants' stock-option strategy orders that are handled by
Penserra, a newly designated broker-dealer. The proposed rule change
provides TPHs with additional options regarding the Exchange's handling
of their stock-option orders.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. TPHs
have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 17% of the market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to
the Exchange. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange, and, additionally off-exchange venues, if
they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \10\ 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'. . . .''.\11\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change
imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC 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 \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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-2020-078 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-2020-078. 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-2020-078 and should be submitted on
or before September 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18501 Filed 8-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P