[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 205 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67383-67387]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23360]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90213; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-094]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Enhance
Its Drill-Through Protections and Make Other Clarifying Changes

October 16, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 5, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to enhance its drill-through protections and make other clarifying
changes. 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 enhance its drill-through protections for
simple and complex orders and make other clarifying changes. Currently,
pursuant to Rule 5.34(a)(4) and (b)(6), the System will execute a
marketable buy (sell) order or complex order,\3\ respectively, up to a
buffer amount above (below) the limit of the Opening Collar or the
national best offer (``NBO'') (national best bid (``NBB'')), as
applicable, or the synthetic national best offer (``SNBO'') or
synthetic national best bid (``SNBB''), respectively (the ``drill-
through price''). The System enters any order (or unexecuted portion),
simple \4\ or complex, into the book or the complex order book
(``COB''), respectively, at the drill-through price for a specified
period of time (determined by the Exchange).\5\ At the end of the time
period, the System cancels any portion of the order not executed during
that time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The System may also initiate a complex order auction
(``COA'') at the drill-through price for a complex order that would
otherwise initiate a COA.
    \4\ Market orders or limit orders (or unexecuted portions) with
times-in-force of immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'') or fill-or-kill
(``FOK'') are cancelled rather than be entered into the book. Limit
orders with times-in-force of day, good-til-cancelled (``GTC''), or
good-til-day (``GTD) may enter the book.
    \5\ The current time period is two seconds, and the current
default amounts are available in the technical specifications
available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/US_Options_BOE_Specification.pdf. Upon implementation of the
proposed rule change, the Exchange will likely reduce the length of
the time period and maintain the same buffer amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to permit orders to rest in the book or COB,
as applicable, for multiple time periods and at more aggressive
displayed prices during each time period.\6\ Specifically, for a limit
order (or unexecuted portion) with a Time-in-Force of Day, GTC, or GTD,
or a complex order, the System enters the order in the Book or COB with
a displayed \7\ price equal to the drill-through price (as discussed
below, if an order's limit price is less aggressive than the drill-
through price, the order will rest in the Book or COB, as applicable,
at its limit price and subject to the User's instructions, and the
drill-through mechanism as proposed to be amended would no longer apply
to the order).\8\ The order (or unexecuted portion) will rest in the
book or COB, as applicable, until the earliest to occur of the order's
full execution and the end of the duration of the number of time
periods.\9\ Following the end of each period prior to the final period,
the System adds (if a buy order) or subtracts (if a sell order) one
buffer amount to the drill-through price displayed during the
immediately preceding period (each new price becomes the ``drill-
through

price'').\10\ The order (or unexecuted portion) rests in the book or
COB, as applicable, at that new drill-through price for the duration of
the subsequent period. Following the end of the final period, the
System cancels or routes to PAR for manual handling, subject to a
User's instructions, the simple or complex order (or unexecuted
portion) not executed during any time period. The Exchange has received
feedback from Users that the current application of the drill-through
mechanism is too limited. The Exchange believes this proposed rule
change will provide additional execution opportunities for these orders
(or unexecuted portions) while providing protection against execution
at prices that may be erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange will announce to Trading Permit Holders the
buffer amount, the number of time periods, and the length of the
time periods in accordance with Rule 1.5. The Exchange notes that
each time period will be the same length (as designated by the
Exchange), and the buffer amount applied for each time period will
be the same.
    \7\ Currently, the drill-through price is the price of orders
and complex orders in the book or COB, respectively. The proposed
rule change clarifies that the drill-through price is displayed,
which is consistent with current functionality.
    \8\ See proposed Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C) and (b)(6)(B).
    \9\ The Exchange will determine on a class-by-class basis the
number of time periods, which may not exceed five, and the length of
the time period, which may not exceed three seconds. See proposed
Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(i) and (b)(6)(B)(i). While the current rule does
not permit the Exchange to determine different time periods for
different classes, the proposed rule change adds class flexibility
so that the Exchange may determine different time periods for
different classes, which may exhibit different trading
characteristics and have different market models. This is consistent
with flexibility the current Rules provide the Exchange with respect
to other portions of the drill-through protection, such as the
buffer amount for simple orders (the proposed rule change also adds
this flexibility for determining the buffer amount for complex
orders). See Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C) [sic] and (b)(6)(A) [sic].
    \10\ The System will apply a timestamp to the order (or
unexecuted portion) based on the time it enters or is re-priced in
the book or COB, as applicable, for priority purposes. See proposed
Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(iii) and (b)(6)(B)(iii). This is consistent with
the current drill-through functionality, pursuant to which the
System applies a timestamp to the order (or unexecuted portion)
based on the time it enters the book or COB, as applicable, modified
to reflect the multiple price levels at which an order may rest. See
current Rule 5.34(a)(4)(D) and (b)(6)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, suppose the Exchange's market for a series in a class
with a 0.05 minimum increment is 0.90-1.00, represented by a quote for
10 contracts on each side (the quote offer is Quote A). The following
sell orders or quote offers for the series also rest in the book:
     Order A: 10 contracts at 1.05;
     Quote B: 10 contracts at 1.10;
     Order B: 10 contracts at 1.15; and
     Order C: 20 contracts at 1.25.
    The market for away exchanges is 0.80-1.45. The Exchange's buffer
amount for the class is 0.10, the drill-through resting time period is
one second, and the number of time periods is three.
    The System receives an incoming order to buy 100 at 1.40, which
executes against resting orders and quotes as follows: 10 against Quote
A at 1.00 (which is the national best offer), 10 against Order A at
1.05, and 10 against Quote B at 1.10. The System will not automatically
execute any of the remaining 70 contracts from the incoming buy order
against Order B, because 1.15 is more than 0.10 away from the national
best offer at the time of order entry of 1.00 and thus exceeds the
drill-through price check. The 70 unexecuted contracts then rest in the
book for one second at a price of 1.10 (the initial drill-through
price). No incoming orders are entered during that one-second time
period to trade against the remaining 70 contracts. The System then re-
prices the buy order in the book at a new drill-through price of 1.20
(drill-through price plus one buffer of 0.10). Ten contracts
immediately execute against Order B at a price of 1.15 (the buy order
is still handled as the ``incoming order'' that executes against the
resting Order B, and thus receives price improvement to 1.15). An
incoming order to sell 20 contracts at 1.20 enters the book and
executes against 20 of the resting contracts at that price. At the end
of the second one-second time period, there are 40 remaining contracts.
These contracts then rest in the book at a price of 1.30 for the final
one second time period. Twenty contracts immediately execute against
Order C at a price of 1.25. No incoming orders are entered during that
time period to trade against the remaining 20 contracts. At the end of
the final one-second time period, the System cancels the remaining 20
contracts (if the order is electronic only) or routes the remaining
portion of the order to PAR for manual handling (if the order is
default).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The proposed drill-through protection for complex orders
works in an identical manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Users may establish a higher or lower buffer amount than
the default amount set by the Exchange with respect to complex orders
subject to the drill-through protection.\12\ Pursuant to the proposed
rule change, if a User establishes its own buffer amount, the drill-
through protection will work as it does today. In other words, if a
User establishes its own buffer amount, a complex order will rest in
the COB for one time period at the drill-through price and any
unexecuted portion will be cancelled (or route to PAR as proposed) at
the end of the time period. The proposed rule change clarifies that the
length of the time period will continue to be determined by the
Exchange, and will be the same as the length of the time period that
applies to complex orders for which the User does not establish its own
buffer amount. The Exchange believes this is consistent with a User's
desire to set its own buffer to accommodate its own risk tolerance. All
Users have the ability either to establish their own buffer amounts for
complex orders, and thus have unexecuted orders rest for one time
period, or let their complex orders be subject to the Exchange default
buffer amount for complex orders, and thus have unexecuted orders rest
at multiple price points for multiple time periods, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 5.34(b)(6) (proposed subparagraph (b)(6)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, any simple or complex order (or unexecuted portion) that
does not execute after resting on the book or COB, respectively, at the
drill-through price is cancelled.\13\ The proposed rule change provides
that a simple or complex order (or unexecuted portion) that does not
execute after the time period(s) will be cancelled or routed to PAR for
manual handling, subject to a User's instructions.\14\ The Exchange
believes this will be consistent with order instructions Users may
apply and thus User's desired handling of their orders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See current Rule 5.34(a)(4)(D) and (b)(6)(B). Note the
current Rules use the language ``cancel or reject'' while the
proposed rule change deletes ``reject,'' as both terms have the same
result and merely relate to internal System code, making the use of
both terms unnecessary.
    \14\ See proposed Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(ii) and (b)(6)(2).
    \15\ See Rule 5.6(c) (definitions of ``default,'' which provides
that an order will be subject to electronic processing and routed to
PAR for manual handling if not eligible for electronic processing,
and ``electronic only,'' which provides that an order will be
subject to electronic processing but will not route to PAR for
manual handling if not eligible for electronic processing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also makes certain clarifying and
nonsubstantive changes, including movement of certain terms and
provisions within Rule 5.34(a)(4) and (b)(6) due to the proposed rule
changes described above. First, the proposed rule change combines the
provisions in current subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 5.34(a)(4) into
proposed subparagraph (A). The drill-through protection in the
following subparagraphs of Rule 5.34(a)(4) (currently and as proposed)
apply to orders that enter the Book at the conclusion of the opening
auction and intraday in the same manner. Current Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C) and
(D) (proposed subparagraphs (B) and (C)) provide that the System
handles orders not executed pursuant to current subparagraph (A) in
accordance with those subparagraphs, inadvertently omitting that
current subparagraphs (C) and (D) (and proposed subparagraphs (B) and
(C)) also apply to orders described in current subparagraph (B). The
proposed rule change clarifies that the drill-through protection
applies to all orders that would enter the Book at prices worse than
the drill-through price, including orders not executed during the
opening auction and orders entered intraday. This is consistent with
and a clarification of current functionality.
    Second, the proposed rule change adds clarifying language regarding
how the System handles orders for which the limit price is equal to or
less than (if a buy order) or greater than (if a sell order) the drill-
through price. Current Rule 5.34(b)(6) contemplates that complex orders
with limit prices equal

to or less aggressive than the drill-through price will not be subject
to the mechanism pursuant to which orders will rest in the COB for a
time period and then be cancelled. Specifically, Rule 5.34(b)(6)(A)
states if a buy (sell) complex order would execute or enter the COB at
a price higher (lower) than the drill-through price, the System enters
the complex order into the COB with a price equal to the drill-through
price and rests for the time period in accordance with the drill-
through mechanism. Additionally, Rule 5.34(b)(6)(B) states that any
complex order with a displayed price equal to the drill-through price
(unless the drill-through price equals the order's limit price) will
rest in the COB for the drill-through time period. Therefore,
currently, if the limit price of a complex order is less aggressive
than or equal to the drill-through price (i.e., if a buy (sell) complex
order (or unexecuted portion) would execute or enter the COB at a price
lower (higher) than or equal to the drill-through price), the complex
order will rest in the COB, as applicable, and the drill-through
mechanism stops (i.e., the time period will not occur and the System
will not cancel the order). This is also true for simple orders but is
not specified in the current Rules.
    The proposed rule change clarifies that notwithstanding the
provisions described above regarding an order or complex order resting
in the book or COB, respectively, for brief time periods at drill-
through prices, if a buy (sell) order's limit price equals or is less
(greater) than the drill-through price at any time during application
of the drill-through mechanism, the order rests in the book or COB, as
applicable, subject to a User's instructions,\16\ at its limit price
and any remaining time period(s) described above do not occur.\17\ If
the drill-through price is equal to or more aggressive than the order's
limit price, the additional protection of having the order rest in the
COB for a short time period is not necessary given that the order will
rest at the limit price entered by the User (and thus an acceptable
execution price for that User). Additionally, displaying an order at a
drill-through price (a price at which execution is possible) worse than
the limit price of the order would be inconsistent with the terms of
the order. This is consistent with current functionality (updated to
reflect the proposed rule change to allow multiple time periods) and
the definition of limit orders and merely clarifies this in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the order will remain in force subject to any
time-in-force instruction applied to the order by the User upon
entry.
    \17\ See proposed Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)(iv) and (b)(6)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the proposed rule change corrects the market order reference
in current Rule 5.34(a)(4)(D) (proposed Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C)) to limit
order. That subparagraph relates to orders with times-in-force of day,
GTC, or GTD that will rest in the book for a time period at the drill-
through price. However, market orders by definition \18\ do not rest in
the book and would not have those times-in-force, which are contrary to
the character of market orders. The System applies the functionality
described in that subparagraph to limit orders with those times-in-
force. The proposed rule change conforms the rule to current System
functionality and to the definition of market and limit orders, as
limit orders not fully executed upon entry will rest in the book while
market orders not fully executed upon entry will be cancelled and not
rest in the book.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 5.6(b).
    \19\ The proposed rule change also reorders the terms limit and
market orders in current Rule 5.34(a)(4)(C) (proposed subparagraph
(a)(4)(B)). This is a nonsubstantive change, as the times-in-force
of immediate-or-cancel or fill-or-kill described in that
subparagraph are applicable to limit orders rather than market
orders, which by definition are immediate-or-cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the proposed rule change clarifies in proposed Rule
5.34(b)(6)(B)(ii) that if the synthetic best bid or offer (``SBBO'')
changes prior to the end of any time period but the complex order
cannot leg into the simple book, and the new SBB or SBO, as applicable,
crosses the drill-through price, the System changes the displayed price
of the complex order to the new SBB or SBO, as applicable, plus or
minus the applicable minimum increment for the class. The current Rule
states that $0.01 is added to or subtracted from the new SBBO. However,
a class may have a minimum increment other than $0.01 pursuant to Rule
5.4(b). Currently, the System adds or subtracts the applicable minimum
increment. The proposed rule change corrects an inadvertent error in
the Rules to conform to current System functionality and Rules
regarding minimum increments for complex orders. The proposed rule
change will ensure that a complex order will rest in the COB only with
a displayed price in the applicable minimum increment applicable for
the class of that complex order. The proposed rule change also
clarifies that the complex order will rest in the COB (the current rule
text says the complex order is not cancelled), and adds detail that the
complex order rests at that displayed price, subject to a User's
instructions, and if it was not the final period, any remaining time
period(s) do not occur.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\20\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \22\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed enhancement to
the drill-through mechanism removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protects investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change will permit orders (or unexecuted portions) to rest in the
book or COB, as applicable, at different displayed prices for a brief
but overall longer period of time, which will provide market
participants' orders with additional execution opportunities while
continuing to protect them against execution at potentially erroneous
prices. The proposed enhancement to the drill-through protection is
similar to current drill-through functionality. The Exchange may
determine the buffer amount for orders and the time period in which
orders may rest in the book or COB. The proposed rule change permits an
order to rest at multiples of the buffer amount, which would have the
same effect as the Exchange setting a larger buffer amount. For
example, if the Exchange set a buffer amount of $0.75, that would allow
orders to execute at

any price no further than $0.75 away from the NBBO or SNBBO at the time
of order entry (including at prices $0.25 and $0.50 away from the NBBO
or SNBBO at the time of order entry). This allows for the same
potential execution prices that would be possible if the Exchange set a
buffer of $0.25 and three time periods under the proposed rule change.
While the overall time period for which an order may rest in the book
or COB may be longer than the currently permissible time period, the
longer time period will still be relatively brief (maximum of 15
seconds). The Exchange notes it may maintain the same buffer amounts
that are in place today. However, rather than increase the buffer
amount at one time, the proposed rule change adds the overall larger
buffer amount incrementally over a potentially overall longer time
period. While this may permit executions at prices farther away from
the NBBO or SNBBO at the time of order entry, it will still never
permit executions at prices through orders' limit prices. This will
provide execution opportunities for orders at incremental amounts away
from the NBBO or SNBBO, as applicable, over a slightly longer time
period and thus against a potentially larger number of orders. Users
also have the ability to cancel orders prior to the completion of the
time periods if they do not want the orders resting for a longer period
of time (and Users can set their own buffer for complex orders, which
would cause those complex orders to rest for a single time period
rather than multiple as proposed).
    Additionally, the proposed rule change to permit orders to route
orders to PAR for manual handling rather than cancel if consistent with
the order instructions will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, as well
as protect investors, because it will allow the System to handle orders
in a manner that is consistent with the intent of a User's order
instruction to route orders to PAR for manual handling that are not
eligible for electronic processing. Manual handling rather than
cancellation of orders in these circumstances may provide these orders
with additional execution opportunities. Manual handling permits
opportunities for brokers to evaluate the prices of orders based on
then-existing market conditions, which creates minimal risk of
executions at erroneous prices. Users that prefer to have their orders
continue to be cancelled following the drill-through mechanism may
include the appropriate instructions on their orders. The Exchange
notes another risk control provides for the routing of orders to PAR
for manual handling after the application of that control.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Rule 5.34(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive
changes to the drill-through protection rules protect investors by
adding transparency to the rules regarding the drill-through
functionality. These changes are consistent with current functionality
and thus do not impact the applicability of the drill-through mechanism
to orders.

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
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the enhanced drill-
through protection will apply to all marketable orders in the same
manner. Users may cancel orders resting on the Book during the drill-
through time periods or set their own buffer with respect to complex
orders if they do not want their orders resting for a longer period of
time as proposed. With respect to the proposed rule change pursuant to
which orders may route to PAR for manual handling following being
subject to the drill-through mechanism, Users can decide whether their
orders may be eligible to route to PAR subject to the proposed rule
change. If Users prefer their orders be cancelled following the drill-
through mechanism (as occurs today), they can include an instruction on
their orders that the order be handled electronically only.
    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 because it
relates solely to how and when marketable orders will rest on the
Exchange's book or COB. The proposed enhancement to the drill-through
protection is consistent with the current protection and provides
orders subject to the protection with additional execution
opportunities while providing continued protection against execution
against potentially erroneous prices.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would ultimately
provide all market participants with additional execution opportunities
when appropriate while providing protection from erroneous execution.
The Exchange believes the proposal will enhance risk protections, the
individual firm benefits of which flow downstream to counterparties
both at the Exchange and at other options exchanges, which increases
systemic protections as well. The Exchange believes enhancing risk
protections will allow Users to enter orders and quotes with further
reduced fear of inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which will
benefit investors through increased liquidity for the execution of
their orders. Without adequate risk management tools, such as the one
proposed to be enhanced in this filing, Trading Permit Holders could
reduce the amount of order flow and liquidity they provide. Such
actions may undermine the quality of the markets available to customers
and other market participants. Accordingly, the proposed rule change is
designed to encourage Trading Permit Holders to submit additional order
flow and liquidity to the Exchange. The proposed flexibility may
similarly provide additional execution opportunities, which further
benefits liquidity in potentially volatile markets. In addition,
providing Trading Permit Holders with more tools for managing risk will
facilitate transactions in securities because, as noted above, Trading
Permit Holders will have more confidence protections are in place that
reduce the risks from potential system errors and market events.
    The proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive changes are consistent
with current functionality and are intended to add clarity to the
Rules, and thus the Exchange expects those changes to have no
competitive impact.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-094 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-2020-094. 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-2020-094 and should be submitted on
or before November 12, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23360 Filed 10-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 53)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13232-13235]
[DOCID:fr19mr10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1031]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Mead Intake Construction, Lake Mead, Boulder
City, NV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of Lake Mead in support of the construction project for Lake
Mead's Intake 3. This safety zone is necessary to ensure non-
authorized personnel and vessels remain safe by keeping clear of the
hazardous area during blasting, excavating, and any other general
construction work. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his designated
representative.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR on March 19,
2010 through December 31, 2010. This rule is effective with actual
notice for purposes of enforcement prior to publication.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-1031 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting

USCG-2009-1031 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.''
They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket
Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail MST3 Corey McDonald, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of commercial and recreational vessels in the
vicinity of any construction on the dates and times this rule will be
in effect and delay would be contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delay in the effective date will
be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure the public's safety.

Background and Purpose

    Vegas Tunnel Construction will be conducting intermittent blasting,
excavating, and other general construction operations for the placement
of an Intake Pipe from Lake Mead throughout 2010. This safety zone is
necessary to ensure non-authorized personnel and vessels remain safe by
keeping clear of the hazardous area during the construction operations.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
intermittently from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. The
limits of the safety zone will include the navigable waters within a
1,300 foot radius around the construction vessels during transit and
while at blast site located at approximately 36[deg]05'23.677501'' N,
114[deg]45'59.925819'' W. The safety zone will be enforced only during
construction operations. This safety zone is necessary to ensure non-
authorized personnel and vessels remain safe by keeping clear of the
hazardous area during the blasting activities. Persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based
on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial and
recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the
designated safety zone during the specified times while construction
operations are being conducted.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of Lake Mead from January 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced only when blasting, excavating, or other general
work is actively being progressed. Vessel traffic can pass safely
around the zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will
publish Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and the construction company
will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM).

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295; 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a new section Sec.  165.T11-281 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-281  Safety Zone; Lake Mead Intake Construction; Lake
Mead, Boulder City, NV.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include the
navigable waters of Lake Mead within a 1300 foot radius around the
construction vessels located at approximately 36[deg]05'24'' N,
114[deg]45'60'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from March
15, 2010 through December 31, 2010 during construction operations. The
safety zone will only be enforced during blasting, excavation, and
other general construction operations. General public boating will be
notified prior to commencement of construction operations by
construction crew via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. If the construction
concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the COTP will cease
enforcement of this safety zone.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Commissioned, Warrant, or
Petty Officers of the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or local,
state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to
act on the behalf of the COTP.
    (2) Non-authorized personnel and vessels, means any civilian boats,
fishermen, divers, and swimmers.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP San
Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Non-authorized personnel and vessels requesting permission to
transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from
the COTP San Diego or his designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16, or at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Vessels involved in the construction operations are allowed in
the confines of the established safety zone.
    (4) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard COTP or his designated representative.
    (5) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or other official
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator
of a vessel must proceed as directed.
    (6) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: February 22, 2010.
D.L. LeBlanc,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.

[FR Doc. 2010-6029 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56644-56645]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2955-011]

City of Watervliet; Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting

Comments

    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.
    b. Project No.: 2955-011.
    c. Date filed: September 2, 2022.
    d. Applicant: City of Watervliet, New York.
    e. Name of Project: Normanskill Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Normans Kill in
the Town of Guilderland in Albany County, New York and approximately
22.4 river miles upstream of the mouth of the

Hudson River. The project does not affect federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.
    h. Applicant Contact: Michele E. Stottler, Gomez and Sullivan
Engineers, DPC, 399 Albany Shaker Road, Suite 203, Loudonville, NY
12211;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected] or Joseph
LaCivita, General Manager, The City of Watervliet, 2 Fifteenth Street,
Watervliet, NY 12189;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Woohee Choi,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments: September 28, 2022. Reply comments
due October 11, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments 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 (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2955-011.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. The City of Watervliet filed the Settlement Agreement on behalf
of itself, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Town of Guilderland.
The purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to resolve, among the
signatories, issues related to operational, fisheries, wildlife, water
quality, and recreation resources associated with issuance of a
subsequent license and water quality certification for the project.
Specifically, the Settlement Agreement includes proposed protection,
mitigation, and enhancements measures to address eel passage,
streamflow and water level monitoring, water quality management, bat
and eagle protection, invasive species management, and recreation. The
City of Watervliet states that the terms of the Settlement Agreement
are an integrated and individual set of measures intended to address
and balance non-power and power values relating to the project and
requests that the Commission approve the Settlement Agreement and
incorporate the proposed measures set forth in section 3 into any
subsequent license issued.
    l. A copy of the settlement agreement may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the document (i.e., P-2955). 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 FERC Online
Support.
    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, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: September 8, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19931 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 37803-37804]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-69]

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

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: EG11-95-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2138-001; ER10-2139-001.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grand Ridge Energy II LLC and
Grand Ridge Energy III.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-005; ER10-2718-005; ER10-2578-007; ER10-
2633-005; ER10-2570-005; ER10-2717-005; ER10-3140-005.
    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC, Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Fox Energy Company, LLC, Birchwood
Power Partners, L.P., Shady Hills Power Company LLC, EFS Parlin
Holdings, LLC, Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of GE
Companies et al.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3122-001.
    Applicants: AES Placerita, Incorporated.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status
of AES Placerita, Incorporated.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 1, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2224-009.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing--ICAP Demand Curves to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2592-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California
Edison Company.
    Description: Joint Progress Report, Motion for Extension of
Temporary Waiver of Certain CAISO Tariff Provisions and Request for
Expedited Consideration of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et. al.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2694-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Joint
Progress Report and Motion for Extension of Temporary Waiver of Certain
California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Tariff Provisions, and
Request for Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3837-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: LGIA BLM Project Coso Energy Developers to
be effective 6/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3838-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Balancing Area
Services Agreement to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3839-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Rate Schedule No. 30 Amended & Restated Transmission
Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3840-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Greenleaf, Inc.
    Description: Calpine Greenleaf, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective
6/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110620-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 11, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 21, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16076 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23118-23121]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80671; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

May 15, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 1, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a new
Supplemental CBOE Volatility Index (``VIX'') Total Firm Volume Discount
for Clearing Trading Permit Holders' (``TPHs'') proprietary orders
(``Supplemental VIX Discount''). The Supplemental VIX Discount allows
VIX options transaction fees for Clearing TPHs' (including its Non-TPH
affiliates) proprietary orders to be discounted provided a Clearing TPH
(including its Non-TPH affiliates) reaches certain VIX firm volume
percentage thresholds during a calendar month.
    The proposed transaction fee discounts for the different volume
percentage tiers for the Supplemental VIX Discount are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Transaction
                VIX firm volume percentage                       fee
                                                             discount %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.00-12.99...............................................            20
13.00-14.99...............................................            30
Above 14.99...............................................            40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VIX Discount applies to orders bearing the origin codes ``F''
and ``L.'' The purpose of the VIX Discount is to encourage greater
Clearing TPH proprietary trading of VIX options while maintaining an
incremental incentive for Clearing TPHs to strive for the highest
discount level.
    To determine a Clearing TPH's applicable discount, the Exchange
will calculate a Clearing TPH's total proprietary order volume in VIX
as a percentage of all Clearing TPHs' total proprietary order volume in
VIX during a calendar month. Total proprietary order volume is
calculated by accounting for all volume in VIX with an ``F'' or ``L''
Origin Code, with volume in the Extended Trading Hours (ETH) aggregated
with Regular Trading Hours (RTH) volume for the same calendar month
included for purposes of calculating the VIX firm volume threshold and
applicable transaction fee discount. The transaction fee discount
percentage will apply to all of a Clearing TPH's transaction fees
assessed for proprietary order volume in VIX during the calendar month.
    In conjunction with the adoption of the Supplemental VIX Discount,
the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 11 of its Fees Schedule to
reference the Supplemental VIX Discount. Like the Clearing TPH Fee Cap,
CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale, and the Proprietary VIX
Sliding Scale, the VIX Discount will apply to (i) Clearing TPH
proprietary orders (``F'' origin code), and (ii) orders of Non-TPH
Affiliates of a Clearing TPH.\3\ A ``Non-TPH Affiliate'' would be
defined for the purposes of the VIX Discount the same way it is defined
for the Clearing TPH Fee Cap, CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale,
and the Proprietary VIX Sliding Scale: A 100% wholly-owned affiliate or
subsidiary of a Clearing TPH that is registered as a United States or
foreign broker-dealer and that is not a CBOE TPH. As with the Clearing
TPH Fee Cap, CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale, and the
Proprietary VIX Sliding Scale, only proprietary orders of the Non-TPH
Affiliate (``L'' origin code) effected for purposes of hedging the
proprietary over-the-counter trading of the Clearing TPH or its
affiliates will be included in calculating the VIX Discount, and such
orders must be marked with a code approved by the Exchange identifying
the orders as eligible for the VIX Discount. As with the Clearing TPH
Fee Cap, CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale, and the Proprietary
VIX Sliding Scale, each Clearing TPH is responsible for notifying the
TPH Department of all of its affiliations so that fees and contracts of
the Clearing TPH and its affiliates may be aggregated for purposes of
the VIX Discount and is required to certify the affiliate status of any
Non-TPH Affiliate whose trading activity it seeks to aggregate. In
addition, each Clearing TPH is required to inform the Exchange
immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease to be an
affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the Clearing TPH Fee Cap, the CBOE Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale, and the Proprietary VIX Sliding Scale, the Exchange will
aggregate the fees and trading activity of separate Clearing TPHs for
the purposes of the VIX Discount if there is at least 75% common
ownership between the Clearing TPHs as reflected on each Clearing TPH's
Form BD, Schedule A. A Clearing TPH's fees and contracts executed
pursuant to a CMTA agreement (i.e., executed by another clearing firm
and then transferred to the Clearing TPH's account at the OCC) are
aggregated with the Clearing TPH's non-CMTA fees and contracts for
purposes of the VIX Discount.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\
which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adoption of the Supplemental VIX Discount is reasonable because
it

will allow Clearing TPHs who engage in VIX options trading the
opportunity to obtain a discount on its transaction fees. Similarly,
aggregating the fees and trading activity of separate Clearing TPHs for
the purposes of the Supplemental VIX Discount if there is at least 75%
common ownership between the Clearing TPHs and aggregating a Clearing
TPH's fees and contracts executed pursuant to a CMTA agreement with the
Clearing TPH's non-CMTA fees and contracts for the purpose of the
Supplemental VIX Discount is reasonable because this will allow more
Clearing TPHs to qualify for the discount at the higher rates in the
Supplemental VIX Discount table.
    Applying the Supplemental VIX Discount to Clearing TPH (and their
affiliates, in the manner described above) proprietary orders only is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, as noted above,
Clearing TPHs take on a number of obligations and responsibilities
(such as membership with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant
regulatory burdens, and financial obligations that other market
participants are not required to undertake. Further, the Supplemental
VIX Discount is designed to encourage increased Clearing TPH
proprietary VIX options volume, which provides increased VIX options
volume and greater trading opportunities for all market participants.
Similarly, applying higher discount rates for Clearing TPHs who hit the
higher percentage of total VIX options contract proprietary volume of
all Clearing TPHs on the VIX Discount is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because this is designed to encourage increased TPH
proprietary VIX options volume, which provides increased VIX options
volume and greater trading opportunities for all Clearing TPHs,
including those who are not able to reach the higher volume
percentages. Moreover, the Exchange already offers other fee-lowering
programs (such as the Fee Cap, CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale,
and Proprietary VIX Sliding Scale) which entail lower fees for Clearing
TPHs (and their affiliates, in the manner described above) and are
limited to Clearing TPHs (and their affiliates, in the manner described
above).
    Applying the Supplemental VIX Discount to VIX options and not to
other products is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would like to encourage more trading in VIX.
    The Exchange believes adding references to the Supplemental VIX
Discount in Footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule alleviates potential
confusion by investors reading the Fees Schedule in light of the
proposed change. This avoidance of confusion removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the Supplemental
VIX Discount applies only to Clearing TPH proprietary orders, Clearing
TPHs take on a number of obligations and responsibilities (such as
membership with the Options Clearing Corporation), significant
regulatory burdens, and financial obligations that other market
participants are not required to undertake. Further, the Supplemental
VIX Discount is designed to encourage increased Clearing TPH
proprietary VIX options volume, which provides increased VIX options
volume and greater trading opportunities for all market participants.
Therefore, the Exchange believes that any potential effects on
intramarket competition that the proposed adoption of the Supplemental
VIX Discount may cause are therefore justifiable. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
applies only to CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE
a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market
participants.

B. 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 \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 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 No. SR-CBOE-2017-039 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 No. SR-CBOE-2017-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2017-039, and should be
submitted on or before June 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10126 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P