[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63115-63119]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22556]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96044; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend the
MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule

October 12, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 29, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared 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 Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, 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 the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees
set forth in Section (1)(a) of the Fee Schedule to: (1) modify the
volume threshold for the alternative volume criteria for certain Maker
(defined below) rebates for Non-Priority Customer, Firm, Broker-Dealer
(``BD''), and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker origins (collectively,
``Professional Members''); (2) lower the alternative Maker rebate for
Professional Members in Penny Classes (defined below); and (3) modify
the volume threshold for the alternative volume criteria for the lower
Taker (defined below) fee for Professional Members' Firm origin when
trading against origins other than Priority Customer \3\ in Penny
Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). The number of
orders shall be counted in accordance with Interpretation and Policy
.01 of Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions section of the Fee
Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all
market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume
executed by the Member \4\ on MIAX Pearl in the relevant, respective
origin type (not including Excluded Contracts) \5\ (as the numerator)
expressed as a percentage of (divided by) TCV \6\ (as the denominator).
In addition, the per contract transaction rebates and fees are applied
retroactively to all eligible volume for that origin type once the
respective threshold tier (``Tier'') has been reached by the Member.
The Exchange aggregates the volume of Members and their Affiliates.\7\
Members that place resting liquidity, i.e., orders resting on the book
of the MIAX Pearl System,\8\ are paid the specified ``maker'' rebate
(each a ``Maker''), and Members that execute against resting liquidity
are assessed the specified ``taker'' fee (each a ``Taker''). For
opening transactions and ABBO \9\ uncrossing transactions, per contract
transaction rebates and fees are waived for all market participants.
Finally, Members are assessed lower transaction fees and receive lower
rebates for order executions in standard option classes in the Penny
Interval Program \10\ (``Penny Classes'') than for order executions in
standard option classes that are not in the Penny Interval Program
(``Non-Penny Classes''), where Members are assessed higher transaction
fees and receive higher rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \6\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX Pearl for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period time in which the Exchange experiences an
``Exchange System Disruption'' (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine (as defined below)). The term Exchange
System Disruption, which is defined in the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule, means an outage of a Matching Engine or collective
Matching Engines for a period of two consecutive hours or more,
during trading hours. The term Matching Engine, which is also
defined in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, is a part of
the MIAX Pearl electronic system that processes options orders and
trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will
process option classes with multiple root symbols, and other
Matching Engines may be dedicated to one single option root symbol
(for example, options on SPY may be processed by one single Matching
Engine that is dedicated only to SPY). A particular root symbol may
only be assigned to a single designated Matching Engine. A
particular root symbol may not be assigned to multiple Matching
Engines. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
to select two consecutive hours as the amount of time necessary to
constitute an Exchange System Disruption, as two hours equates to
approximately 1.4% of available trading time per month. The Exchange
notes that the term ``Exchange System Disruption'' and its meaning
have no applicability outside of the Fee Schedule, as it is used
solely for purposes of calculating volume for the threshold tiers in
the Fee Schedule. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \7\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's
Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX Pearl Market
Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based
upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM
and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX Pearl
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX Pearl Market Maker,
pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Pearl Market Maker
appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Pearl Market Maker, for
the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an
executed Volume Aggregation Request Form by email to
[email protected] no later than 2 business days prior to
the first business day of the month in which the designation is to
become effective. Transmittal of a validly completed and executed
form to the Exchange along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of
the effective designation to each of the Market Maker and EEM will
be viewed as acceptance of the appointment. The Exchange will only
recognize one designation per Member. A Member may make a
designation not more than once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), which designation shall remain in effect
unless or until the Exchange receives written notice submitted 2
business days prior to the first business day of the month from
either Member indicating that the appointment has been terminated.
Designations will become operative on the first business day of the
effective month and may not be terminated prior to the end of the
month. Execution data and reports will be provided to both parties.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \9\ ``ABBO'' means the best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by
other Eligible Exchanges (defined in Exchange Rule 1400(g)) and
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88992 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35142 (June 8, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Modify the Volume Threshold for the Alternative Volume
Criteria for Certain Maker Rebates for Professional Members and Lower
the Alternative Rebate for Professional Members in Penny Classes
    The Exchange proposes to amend footnote ``[supcaret]'' below the
tables in the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees section set forth in
Section (1)(a) of the Fee Schedule to decrease the affiliated Priority
Customer threshold in order for Members to qualify for alternative
Maker rebates for options transactions in all classes for Professional
Members, provided that the Member meets certain volume criteria.
Currently, Professional Members may qualify for Maker rebates equal to
the greater of: (A) ($0.40) for Penny Classes and ($0.65) for Non-Penny
Classes, or (B) the amount set forth in the applicable Tier reached by
the Member in the relevant origin, if the Member and their Affiliates
execute at least 2.25% volume in the relevant month, in Priority
Customer origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded
Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl listed option
classes.
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the affiliated Priority Customer
threshold percentage amount in footnote ``[supcaret]'' in order for
Members to qualify for the alternative Maker rebates for their
Professional Members. The threshold will change from at least 2.25% to
at least 1.25% volume in the relevant month, in Priority Customer
origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded Contracts,
as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl listed option classes. For
purposes of qualifying for such rates, the Exchange will continue

to aggregate the Priority Customer volume transacted by Members and
their Affiliates. As the amount and type of volume that is executed on
the Exchange has shifted since it first established the alternative
Maker rebates for options transactions in all classes for Professional
Members, provided that the Member meets certain volume criteria, the
Exchange has determined to level-set this threshold amount so that it
is more reflective of the current operating conditions and the current
type and amount of volume executed on the Exchange.\11\ This change is
also for business and competitive reasons in order to attract
additional Priority Customer volume from Professional Members by
decreasing the alternative volume threshold in order for Professional
Members to achieve the alternative Maker rebates denoted by footnote
``[supcaret]'', which should benefit all Exchange participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91605 (April 16,
2021), 86 FR 21405 (April 22, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-16); 83419 (June
12, 2018), 83 FR 28285 (June 18, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-13); 85608
(April 11, 2019), 84 FR 16073 (April 17, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend footnote ``[supcaret]'' to
decrease the alternative Maker rebate for Professional Members in Penny
Classes. As described above, footnote ``[supcaret]'' provides that
Members may achieve an alternative Maker rebate of ($0.40) in Penny
Classes if a certain volume threshold is achieved in the Priority
Customer origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded
Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl listed option
classes. The Exchange now proposes to decrease this Maker rebate from
($0.40) to ($0.37). Accordingly, with both of the proposed changes to
footnote ``[supcaret],'' Members may qualify for Maker rebates equal to
the greater of: (A) ($0.37) for Penny Classes and ($0.65) for Non-Penny
Classes, or (B) the amount set forth in the applicable Tier reached by
the Member in the relevant origin, if the Member and their Affiliates
execute at least 1.25% volume in the relevant month, in Priority
Customer origin type, in all options classes, not including Excluded
Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl listed option
classes.
    The purpose of adjusting the specified Maker rebate is for business
and competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow, the Exchange
initially set its Maker rebates so that they were higher than other
options exchanges that operate comparable maker/taker pricing
models.\12\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust this
specified Maker rebate so that it is more in line with other exchanges,
but will remain highly competitive such that it should enable the
Exchange to continue to attract order flow and maintain market
share.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80061 (February
17, 2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10)
(establishing the Exchange's fee schedule with Market Maker and
Professional Member Maker Penny Class rebates ranging from ($0.25)
in Tier 1 to ($0.48) in Tier 4, the highest Tier at that time).
    \13\ See, generally, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Options 7 Pricing
Schedule, Section 2 (Professional Member rebates ranging from $0.20
in Tier 1 to $0.48 in Tier 6); Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule,
Standard Rates (Professional rebates for Penny Class securities
ranging from $0.25 to $0.48 for adding liquidity; and Firm, Broker-
Dealer, Joint Back Office rebates for Penny Class securities ranging
from $0.25 to $0.46 for adding liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Modify the Volume Threshold for the Alternative Volume
Criteria for the Lower Taker Fee for Professional Members' Firm Origin
When Trading Against Origins Other Than Priority Customer in Penny
Classes
    The Exchange proposes to amend footnote ``[diamso]'' below the
tables in the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees section set forth in
Section (1)(a) of the Fee Schedule to decrease the affiliated Priority
Customer threshold in which Members may qualify for alternative lower
Taker fee for options transactions in Penny Classes for Professional
Members' Firm origin, provided that the Member meets certain volume
criteria. Currently, Professional Members may qualify for the
alternative lower Taker fee for their Firm origin of $0.48 in Penny
Classes when trading against origins other than Priority Customer if
the Member and their Affiliates execute at least 2.25% of TCV in the
relevant month in the Priority Customer origin type, in all options
classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to TCV in all
MIAX Pearl listed option classes.
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the affiliated Priority Customer
threshold percentage amount in footnote ``[diamso]'' in order for
Members' Firm origin to qualify for the alternative lower Taker fee.
The threshold will change from at least 2.25% to at least 1.25% of TCV
in the relevant month, in Priority Customer origin type, in all options
classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in
all MIAX Pearl listed option classes. As the amount and type of volume
that is executed on the Exchange has shifted since it first established
the alternative Taker fee,\14\ the Exchange has determined to level-set
this threshold amount so that it is more reflective of the current
operating conditions and the current type and amount of volume executed
on the Exchange. The purpose of this change is also for business and
competitive reasons in order to attract additional Priority Customer
volume by decreasing the alternative volume threshold in order for
Professional Members to achieve the lower Taker fee for their Firm
origin orders, which should benefit all Exchange participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85608 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16073 (April 17, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-13) (establishing
lower alternative Taker fee for Firm origin with volume threshold of
2.00% of TCV); 85807 (May 8, 2019), 84 FR 21368 (May 14, 2019) (SR-
PEARL-2019-15) (removing one of the conditions that must be met in
order for Members to qualify for the alternative lower Taker fee for
Penny Classes for their Firm origin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed changes are effective beginning October 1, 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. 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.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, as of September 26, 2022, no single exchange has
more than approximately 10-11% equity options market share for the
month of September 2022.\19\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power. More specifically, as of September 26, 2022,
the Exchange has a market share of approximately 4.04% of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity options for the month of September
2022.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``The market at a glance,'' (last visited September 26,
2022), available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products and
services, terminate an existing membership or determine to not become a
new member, and/or shift order flow, in response to transaction fee
changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the Exchange filed with the
Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for
options transactions in certain Penny classes for Priority Customers
and decrease Maker rebates in certain Tiers for options transactions in
Penny classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective
March 1, 2019).\21\ The Exchange experienced a decrease in total market
share for the month of March 2019, after the proposal went into effect.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its March 1, 2019, fee change,
to increase certain transaction fees and decrease certain transaction
rebates, may have contributed to the decrease in MIAX Pearl's market
share and, as such, the Exchange believes competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's, and other options exchanges, ability to set transaction
fees and market participants can shift order flow based on fee changes
instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to decrease the Priority
Customer threshold for alternative Maker rebates for options
transactions in all classes for Professional Members, provided that the
Member meets certain volume criteria is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated market
participants are subject to the same tiered rebates and fees. The
Exchange believes that providing alternative Maker rebates for options
transactions in all classes for Professional Members (if the Member
meets certain volume criteria relating to Priority Customer volume),
and adjusting the threshold requirement so that it is reflective of
current operating conditions and the current type and amount of volume
executed on the Exchange, will encourage Members to execute additional
Priority Customer and Professional Member volume on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that additional Priority Customer and Professional
Member volume executed on the Exchange will attract further liquidity
to the Exchange, which in turn will benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to decrease the alternative
Maker rebate for Professional Members in Penny Classes is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly
situated market participants are subject to the same tiered rebates and
fees. In order to attract order flow, the Exchange initially set its
Maker rebates so that they were higher than other options exchanges
that operate comparable maker/taker pricing models.\22\ The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable and equitable to adjust this specified
Maker rebate so that it is more in line with other exchanges, but will
remain highly competitive such that it should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80061 (February
17, 2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10)
(establishing the Exchange's fee schedule with Market Maker and
Professional Member Maker Penny Class rebates ranging from ($0.25)
in Tier 1 to ($0.48) in Tier 4, the highest Tier at that time).
    \23\ See, generally, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Options 7 Pricing
Schedule, Section 2 (Professional Member rebates ranging from $0.20
in Tier 1 to $0.48 in Tier 6); Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule,
Standard Rates (Professional rebates for Penny Class securities
ranging from $0.25 to $0.48 for adding liquidity; and Firm, Broker-
Dealer, Joint Back Office rebates for Penny Class securities ranging
from $0.25 to $0.46 for adding liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to decrease the Priority
Customer threshold for the alternative lower Taker fee for Professional
Members' Firm origin, provided that the Member meets certain volume
criteria is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all similarly situated market participants are subject to the
same tiered rebates and fees. The Exchange believes that providing the
lower alternative Taker fee for Professional Members Firm origin (if
the Member meets certain volume criteria relating to Priority Customer
volume), and adjusting the threshold requirement so that it is
reflective of current operating conditions and the current type and
amount of volume executed on the Exchange, will encourage Members to
execute additional Priority Customer and Professional Member volume on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that additional Priority Customer
and Professional Member volume executed on the Exchange will attract
further liquidity to the Exchange, which in turn will benefit all
market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change to lower the volume threshold for the alternative
volume criteria for certain Maker rebates for Professional Members
should continue to encourage the provision of liquidity that enhances
the quality of the Exchange's market and increase the number of trading
opportunities on the Exchange for all participants who will be able to
compete for such opportunities. Similarly, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change to lower the volume threshold for the alternative
volume criteria for the lower Taker fee for Professional Members' Firm
origin should continue to encourage the provision of liquidity that
enhances the quality of the Exchange's market and increase the number
of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all participants who will
be able to compete for such opportunities. These proposed changes
should enable the Exchange to continue to attract and compete for
Professional Member and Priority Customer order flow with other
exchanges. However, this competition does not create an undue burden on
competition but rather offers all market participants the opportunity
to receive the benefit of competitive pricing.
    The Exchange believes the proposed Maker rebate adjustment is
intended to keep the Exchange's rebates highly competitive with those
of other exchanges, and to encourage liquidity and should enable the
Exchange to continue to attract and compete for order flow with other
exchanges. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, the

Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this
competitive environment because the proposal modifies the Exchange's
fees in a manner that encourages market participants to continue to
provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \25\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2022-42.

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-PEARL-2022-42. 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-PEARL-2022-42, and should be submitted
on or before November 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22556 Filed 10-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71658-71659]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-5913]

Assessing User Fees Under the Prescription Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2017; Revised Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a revised final guidance for industry entitled
``Assessing User Fees Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments
of 2017,'' which supersedes the now withdrawn final guidance issued in
May 2018 (May 2018 guidance). This revised final guidance concerns
FDA's implementation of the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of
2017. In particular, this revised final guidance removes section VI.B.
contained in the May 2018 guidance, regarding the ``same product as
another product'' prescription drug program fee exception for certain
prescription drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on November 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-5913 for ``Assessing User Fees Under the Prescription Drug
User Fee Amendments of 2017; Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the revised guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Chen, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Rm. 2185, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a revised guidance for
industry entitled ``Assessing User Fees Under the Prescription Drug
User Fee Amendments of 2017.'' We are issuing this revised final
guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation
(Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this revised
guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that
prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (Sec.
10.115(g)(2)). The change reflected in the revised guidance needs to be
implemented and communicated in a timely manner in light of the ongoing
user fee billing process. Although this revised guidance document is
immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with
FDA's GGP regulation.
    In May 2018, FDA issued guidance concerning the Agency's
implementation of the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017
(PDUFA VI) and clarifying certain changes in policies and procedures
surrounding its application (83 FR 19564). Section VI.B. of the May
2018 guidance provided an interpretation of the term ``same product''
as it is used in the prescription drug program fee exception for
certain prescription drug products under section 736(a)(2)(B)(ii) (21
U.S.C. 379h(a)(2)(B)(ii)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
After further consideration of the issue, we have decided to withdraw
the interpretation in our May 2018 guidance and return to our prior
practice. Accordingly, for FY 2020 and FY 2021 billing we are
considering drug products to be the ``same product'' if they were
pharmaceutically equivalent to a prescription drug product as
determined through the process for assigning therapeutic equivalence
codes. Therefore, this revised guidance removes section VI.B. as
described in the May 2018 guidance. There are no other changes to the
guidance.
    This revised guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (Sec.  10.115). The revised guidance
represents the current thinking of FDA on Assessing User Fees Under the
Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017. It does not establish
any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You
can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm,
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: November 5, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-24941 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20135-20136]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-65-000]

Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

April 12, 2021.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's

(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Holy
Cross Electric Association, Inc. (HCE), filed a petition for
declaratory order (Petition) requesting that the Commission find that
HCE has the right to capacity offsets against the Full Requirements
Service obligations otherwise required under the Power Supply Agreement
for the power it purchases from Qualifying Facilities (QF) on its
system; the right to use firm transmission under the Transmission
Integration and Equalization Agreement; and the right to connect QFs to
the Holy Cross system using its own interconnection procedures, as more
fully explained in the 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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://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_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. 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.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 5, 2021.

    Dated: April 12, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07844 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13583-13586]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2018-0027]

Automation in the Railroad Industry

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: This request for information notice replaces the version
published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12646), to
make technical corrections to the prior version. FRA requests
information and comment on the future of automation in the railroad
industry. FRA is interested in hearing from industry stakeholders, the
public, local and State governments, and any other interested parties
on the potential benefits, costs, risks, and challenges to

implementing automated railroad operations. FRA also seeks comment on
how the agency can best support the railroad industry's development and
implementation of new and emerging technologies in automation that
could lead to safety improvements or increased efficiencies in railroad
operations.

DATES: Comments and information responsive to this request should be
received by May 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information and comments identified by the
docket number FRA-2018-0027 by any one of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
     Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number for this RFI (FRA-2018-0027). Note that all
comments and data received in response to this RFI will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Cipriano, Special Assistant to
the Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>),
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    FRA seeks to understand the current stage and development of
automated railroad operations and how the agency can best position
itself to support the integration and implementation of new automation
technologies to increase the safety, reliability, and the capacity of
the nation's railroad system. As in other transportation modes, there
are varying levels of automation that already are, or could potentially
be, implemented in the railroad industry. Currently, U.S. passenger and
freight railroads do not have a fully autonomous rail operation in
revenue service, however, railroads commonly use automated systems for
dispatching, meet and pass trip planning, locomotive fuel trip time
optimization, and signaling and train control. Railroads conduct many
switching and yard operations by remote control and automated equipment
and track inspections technologies are used to augment manual
inspection methods. Modern locomotive cabs are equipped with
intelligent information systems designed to provide operating crews
with up-to-date situational awareness as train sensor data and alarms
are continuously updated and displayed in operator consoles within the
cab. Railroads often now utilize energy management technology (the
equivalent of automobile cruise-control) to optimize fuel consumption
based on specific operational and equipment factors, as well as
movement planner systems designed to optimize in real-time, train
movements on the rail network. Railroads are implementing statutorily
mandated positive train control technology (a processor-based/
communications-based train control system) to prevent train accidents
by automatically controlling train speeds and movements if a train
operator fails to take appropriate action in certain operational
scenarios. These various systems of automation and technologies have
transformed rail operations in recent years, improving railroad
operational safety and efficiency.
    FRA has helped developed many of these technologies and
enhancements to these technologies are currently underway to support
more advanced train control schemes and fully autonomous operations. In
the fall of 2017, the Association of American Railroads, the freight
rail industry's primary industry organization that focuses on policy,
research, standard setting and technology, formed a Technical Advisory
Group on autonomous train operations (ATO TAG). The focus of the ATO
TAG is to define industry standards for an interoperable system to
support enhanced safety and efficiency of autonomous train operations.
The ATO TAG intends to develop standardization to support common
interfaces and functions, such that technology may be applied in an
interoperable fashion, while also allowing some flexibility in the
specific design, implementation and packaging of the technology.
    Internationally, the only known fully-autonomous freight railroad
system is in Australia. The system is part of the Australia Rio Tinto
mining company and began fully-autonomous train operations on an
approximately 62-mile stretch of track in Western Australia. This Rio
Tinto train is equipped with a variety of sensors (e.g., radar,
cameras, kangaroo collisions sensors) and with a switch to toggle
between autonomous operation or operation with an operator on board.
    FRA seeks to understand the rail industry's plans for future
development and implementation of automated train systems and
technologies and the industry's plans and expectations related to
potential fully-automated rail operations. FRA is specifically
interested in the anticipated benefits, costs, risks, and challenges to
achieving the industry's desired level of automation. FRA also seeks to
understand how the rail industry's plans for future automation may
affect other stakeholders, including railroad employees, the traveling
public and freight shipping industry, railroad industry suppliers and
equipment manufacturers, communities through which railroads operate,
local and state governments with roles in regulating highway-rail grade
crossing safety, and any other interested parties.
    FRA also seeks comment on the appropriate taxonomy to use to
provide a baseline framework for the continued development and
implementation of automated technology in the railroad industry. For
example, both SAE, for on-road vehicles, and the International
Association of Public Transport's (UITP) for public transit fixed
guideway (rail) have developed taxonomies for their respective modes of
transportation.
    The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on ``who does
what, when.'' Generally:
     At SAE Level 0, the driver does everything.
     At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can
sometimes assist the driver conduct some parts of the driving task.
     At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can
actually conduct some parts of the driving task, while the driver
continues to monitor the driving environment and performs the rest of
the driving task.

     At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually
conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving
environment in some instances, but the driver must be ready to take
back control when the automated system requests.
     At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the
driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the driver need
not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in
certain environments and under certain conditions.
     At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all
driving tasks, under all conditions that a driver could perform them.
    Using the SAE levels described above, the Department has drawn a
distinction for non-road vehicles between Levels 0-2 and 3-5 based on
whether the human driver or the automated system is primarily
responsible for monitoring the driving environment.
    Automatic Train Operation of public transit fixed guideway (rail)
systems is an operational safety enhancement to automate operations of
trains. It is mainly used on fixed guideway rail systems which are
easier to ensure safety of agency staff and passengers. Basically, each
grade defines distinct functions of train operation that are the
responsibility of agency staff and those that are the responsibility of
the rail system itself.
    Similar to SAE, UITP defines grades of automation (GoA) for fixed
guideway (rail) systems. Generally:
     At UITP Grade 0, on-sight train operation, similar to a
streetcar running in mixed traffic.
     At UITP Grade 1, manual train operation where a train
operator controls starting and stopping, operation of doors and
handling of emergencies or sudden diversions.
     At UITP Grade 2, semi-automatic train operation where
starting and stopping is automated, but the train operator or conductor
controls the doors, drives the train if needed and handles emergencies
(many ATO systems worldwide are Grade 2),
     At UITP Grade 3, driverless train operation where starting
and stopping are automated but a train attendant or conductor controls
the doors and drives the train in case of emergencies.
     At UITP Grade 4, unattended train operation where starting
and stopping, operation of doors and handling of emergencies are fully
automated without any on-train staff.
    FRA requests comment on whether these or other taxonomies for
automation should be applied to railroads.

II. Questions Posed

    Although FRA seeks comments and relevant information and data on
all issues related to the development and continued implementation of
automated train systems and technologies and potentially fully
autonomous train operations, FRA specifically requests comment and data
in response to the following questions:

General Questions

    1. To what extent do railroads plan to automate operations? Do
railroads plan to implement fully autonomous rail vehicles (i.e.,
vehicles capable of sensing their environments and operating without
human input)? If so, for what types of operations?
    2. How do commenters envision the path to wide-scale development
and implementation of autonomous rail operations (or operations
increasingly reliant on automated train systems or technologies)? What
is the potential timeframe for technology prototype availability for
testing and for deployment of such technologies?
    3. As discussed above, the railroad industry is currently taking
steps in developing standards for automation. How does the railroad
industry currently define ``autonomous operations''? Would it be
helpful to develop automated rail taxonomy; a system of standards to
clarify and define different levels of automation in trains, as
currently exists for on-road vehicles and rail transit? What, if any,
efforts are already under way to develop such rail automation taxonomy?
Should FRA embrace any existing and defined levels of automation in the
railroad industry or other transportation modes such as highways or
public transit? For example, should FRA consider SAE Standard
J3016_201609 (see http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/), which
provides for six GoA for on-road vehicles, or the four GoA for public
transit fixed guideway vehicles?
    4. What limitations and/or risks (e.g., practical, economic,
safety, or other) are already known or anticipated in implementing
these types of technologies? How should the railroad industry
anticipate addressing these limitations and/or risks, and what efforts
are currently underway to address them? Are any mitigating efforts
expected in the future and what is the timeline for such efforts?
    5. What benefits and efficiencies (e.g., practical, economic,
safety, or other) do commenters anticipate that railroads will be able
to achieve by implementing these technologies?
    6. What societal benefits if any, could be expected to result from
the adoption of these technologies (e.g., environmental, or noise
reduction)? What societal disadvantages could occur?
    7. What, if anything, is needed from other railroad industry
participants (e.g., rail equipment and infrastructure suppliers,
manufacturers, maintainers) to support railroads' automation efforts?
    8. How does the state of automation of U.S. railroad operations
compare to that of railroads in other countries? What can be learned
from automation employed or under development in other countries? What
are the unique characteristics of U.S. railroad operations and/or
infrastructure as compared to railroads in other countries that may
affect the wide-scale automation of railroad operations in this
country?

Safety and/or Security Issues

    9. How do commenters believe these technologies could increase rail
safety?
    10. What processes do railroads have in place to identify potential
safety and/or security, including cybersecurity, risks arising during
the adoption of these technologies and that may result from the
adoption of such technologies?
    11. How should railroads plan to ensure identified safety and/or
security risks are adequately addressed during the development and
implementation of these new technologies? What is an acceptable level
of risk in this context?
    12. How should railroads plan to ensure the integration of these
technologies will not adversely affect, and will instead improve, the
safety and/or security of railroad operations?
    13. What are the safety and security issues raised by automation in
railroad operations at public and private at-grade highway-rail
crossings? To what extent should DOT coordinate with state or local
governmental entities on certain safety or security issues? How might
automation improve the safety of the general public at highway-rail
grade crossings or along the railroad rights-of way?
    14. How do railroads plan to ensure safety and security from cyber
risks?
    15. How do the safety and/or security, including cyber risks, faced
by U.S. railroads implementing these technologies compare to the risks
faced by railroads operating in other countries? How have railroads in
other countries addressed or mitigated these risks? Are there
opportunities for cross-border collaboration to address such risks?

Infrastructure

    16. What are the infrastructure needs for effectively, safely, and
securely

implementing these technologies? FRA is particularly interested in
wayside, communication, onboard, operating personnel, testing,
maintenance, certification, and data infrastructure needs, as well as
any other expected or anticipated infrastructure needs.
    17. How can the nation's existing rail infrastructure be leveraged
to support the implementation of new infrastructure, necessary for the
adoption of automated and autonomous operations?

Workforce Viability

    18. What is the potential impact of the adoption of these
technologies on the existing railroad industry workforce?
    19. Would the continued implementation of these technologies,
including fully autonomous rail vehicles, create new jobs and/or
eliminate the need for existing jobs in the railroad industry?
    20. What railroad employee training needs would likely result from
the adoption of these technologies? For example, if the technology
fails en route, will an onboard employee be trained to take over
operation of the vehicle manually or be required to repair the
technology en route?

Legal/Regulatory Issues

    21. What potential legal issues are raised by the development and
implementation of autonomous train systems and technologies within the
industry?
    22. What are the regulatory challenges (rail-specific or DOT-wide)
that must be addressed before autonomous rail vehicles can be made a
part of railroad operations in the United States?
    23. Are there current safety standards and/or regulations that
impede the development and/or implementation of automated train systems
or technologies in the railroad industry, including the development
and/or implementation of autonomous rail vehicles? If so, what are they
and how should they be addressed?

Opportunities for Joint Government/Industry Cooperation

    24. Are there current or anticipated railroad industry, private,
international, or State or local government pilot projects or research
initiatives involving automated train systems or technologies
potentially in need of FRA support? If so, what are the needs (e.g.,
regulatory, technical)?
    25. What data relevant to the development and integration of
automated train systems and technologies currently exists that could be
leveraged to address future government/industry research needs?

III. Public Participation

    FRA invites all interested parties to submit comments, data, and
information related to the specific questions listed in Section II
above and any other comments, data, or information relevant to issues
related to the development and implementation in the railroad industry
of new automated train systems or technologies.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments should be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct docket, please include docket number
FRA-2018-0027 in your comments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket following the instruction
given above under ADDRESSES. If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the document
submitted be scanned using an Optical Character Recognition process,
thus allowing FRA to search your comments.

How do I request confidential treatment of my submission?

    Although FRA encourages the submission of information that can be
freely and publicly shared, if you wish to submit any information under
a claim of confidentiality, you must follow the procedures in 49 CFR
209.11.

Will FRA consider late comments?

    FRA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, FRA will also consider comments after that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also read the comments on the internet, filed in the
docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, FRA will
continue to file any relevant information it receives in the docket as
it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, FRA recommends that you periodically check the docket for
new material.

IV. Privacy Act Statement

    FRA notes that anyone is able to search (at www.regulations.gov)
the electronic form of all filings received into any of DOT's dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the filing (or signing the
filing, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, or other organization). You may review DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may view the privacy
notice of regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2018.
Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-06281 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 24218]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08767]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation
Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Friday, May 6, 2022,
via videoconference.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference)
and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on
the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority
of the Commission may attend the meeting.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda for the meeting includes matters
relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging
businesses and their investors under the federal securities laws.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

     Dated: April 20, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08767 Filed 4-20-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19751]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI18-4-000]

Cole Rhoten; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

April 30, 2018.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI18-4-000.
    c. Date Filed: March 19, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Cole Rhoten.
    e. Name of Project: Port William Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Port William Dam Hydroelectric Project
would be located on Anderson Fork Creek, near the Village of Port
William, in Clinton County, Ohio.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).
    h. Applicant Contact: Cole Rhoten, 677 Milford Hills Drive,
Milford, OH 45150, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene
is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number DI18-4-000.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Port William
Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) The existing Port
William Dam; (2) a new penstock; (3) a cross-flow turbine generating
unit with a generating capacity of 15-80 kilowatts; (4) a transmission
line connecting the generating unit to Columbus Southern Power
Company's electric distribution system; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3)
would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has
Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after
1935.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888
First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202)
502-8371.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', and
``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion
to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09484 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P