[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44125-44129]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15687]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89325; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adopt Related Futures
Cross (``RFC'') Orders

July 15, 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 July 1, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to adopt Related Futures Cross (``RFC'') Orders. 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 adopt RFC orders on a permanent basis. On
the Exchange's trading floor, floor brokers execute crosses of option
combos (i.e., synthetic futures) on the trading floor on behalf of
market participants who were exchanging futures contracts for related
options positions. Market participants enter into these exchanges in
order to swap related exposures. For instance, if a market participant
has positions in VIX options but would prefer to hold a corresponding
position in VIX futures (such as, for example, to reduce margin or risk
related to the option positions), that market participant may swap its
VIX options positions with another market participant(s)'s VIX futures
positions that have corresponding risk exposure.\3\ The Exchange
understands from customers that the need to reduce risk is prevalent in
VIX and SPX, particularly when the markets are volatile, and that they
often have corresponding futures that could make these exchanges
possible. For example, Cboe Futures Exchange LLC (``CFE'') permit these
types of exchanges with respect to VIX futures pursuant to CFE Rule
414.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The transaction between the market participants for the
futures positions occurs in accordance with the rules of the
applicable designated contract market that lists the futures. See,
e.g., Cboe Futures Exchange LLC Rule 414.
    \4\ Currently, CME, which lists futures that correspond to SPX
options, does not offer similar exchange opportunities. If CME
implements a rule to permit them, the proposed rule change will
permit TPHs to similar use RFC orders to swap exposure with
corresponding futures that transact pursuant to CME's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key element to these exchanges is that both of the option and
future transactions must occur between the same market participants.
When a floor broker represented the cross of the option contracts on
the trading floor in accordance with applicable rules,\5\ while in-
crowd market participants had the opportunity to bid or offer to
participate on the trade, those participants generally declined to
participate upon hearing that the cross was part of an exchange of
related futures contracts. While not required by the Rules, the Rules
permit in-crowd market participants to decline to accept contracts that
would otherwise be allocated to them.\6\ The Exchange understands these
market participants decline this allocation voluntarily, as

they are aware of the need for market participants to execute these
crosses cleanly for the transfer of risk between participants to be
effective.\7\ These are riskless exchanges that carry no profit or loss
for the market participants that are party to the transactions, but
rather are intended to provide a seamless method for market
participants to reduce margin and capital requirements while
maintaining the same risk exposure within their portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules 5.85 and 5.87.
    \6\ See Rule 5.85(a)(2)(C)(iv).
    \7\ Additionally, many market-makers in the crowd that decline
their allocations in these crosses often similarly engage in these
exchanges for similar purposes, so may similarly benefit from the
ability to execute these clean crosses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From March 16 to June 12, 2020, the Exchange closed its trading
floor in response to the coronavirus pandemic. During that time, the
Exchange operated in an all-electronic configuration, which would have
prevented market participants from executing these crosses. As a
result, the Exchange adopted Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D) to permit Trading
Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to execute RFC orders while the trading floor
was closed.\8\ When the trading floor reopened on June 15, 2020, RFC
orders were no longer available. However, the Exchange has received
feedback from customers regarding the benefits of RFC orders, including
the efficiency it provided with respect to the execution of these
crosses. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt RFC orders that can
be executed electronically or in open outcry on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to current Rule 5.24(e)(1), RFC orders would be
available until the earlier of the reopening of the trading floor or
June 30, 2020. Because the proposed rule change proposes to adopt
RFC orders on a permanent basis, the proposed rule change deletes
the temporary RFC order rule in Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adds RFC orders to the list of complex
order instructions in Rule 5.33(b)(5). For purposes of electronic
trading, a ``Related Futures Cross'' or ``RFC'' order is an SPX or VIX
complex order comprised of an option combo order coupled with a contra-
side order or orders totaling an equal number of option combo orders.
For purposes of open outcry trading, an RFC order is an SPX or VIX
complex order comprised of an option combo that may execute against a
contra-side RFC order or orders totaling an equal number of option
combo orders. An RFC order must be identified to the Exchange as being
part of an exchange of option contracts for related futures
positions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed definition of RFC order for electronic trading
purposes is identical to the current definition in Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D).
The proposed definition of RFC order for open outcry trading is
identical as well, except it contemplates RFC orders to be submitted as
two separate orders rather than a paired order, as paired orders are
currently unable to route to PAR for manual handling. This is merely a
difference in form of submission--as two orders are submitted to the
System in one order message for electronic and two orders are submitted
to the System in separate messages for open outcry--but the criteria to
be considered an RFC order and the terms of execution are the same for
both. The Exchange notes that currently, if a TPH wants to execute a
cross of options orders as part of an exchange for related futures
positions, such cross occurs with two separate orders, so the proposed
rule change is consistent with current practice on the trading floor,
except it eliminates the need for exposure.
    For purposes of the proposed RFC order instruction:
     An SPX or VIX option combo order is a two-legged order
with one leg to purchase (sell) SPX or VIX calls and another leg to
sell (purchase) the same number of SPX or VIX, respectively, puts with
the same expiration date and strike price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An exchange of option contracts for related futures
positions is a transaction entered into by market participants seeking
to swap option positions with related futures positions with related
exposures.
     A related futures position is a position in a futures
contract with either the same underlying as or a high degree of price
correlation to the underlying of the option combo in the RFC order so
that execution of the option combos in the RFC order would serve as an
appropriate hedge for the related future positions.
     In an exchange of contracts for related positions, one
party(ies) must be the buyer(s) of (or the holder(s) of the long market
exposure associated with) the options positions and the seller(s) of
corresponding futures contracts and the other party(ies) must be the
seller(s) of (or holder(s) of the short market exposure associated
with) the options positions and the buyer(s) of the corresponding
futures contracts. The quantity of the option contracts executed as
part of the RFC order must correlate to the quantity represented by the
related futures position portion of the exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adopts Rule 5.33(m) to describe how RFC
orders may execute. Specifically, proposed subparagraph (m)(1) states
an RFC order will execute automatically on entry without exposure if:
     Each option leg executes at a price that complies with
Rule 5.33(f)(2),\12\ provided that no option leg executes at the same
price as a Priority Customer Order in the Simple Book; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 5.33(f)(2) requires complex orders, which would
include an RFC order, which by definition contains two option legs,
to execution only if the execution price: At a net price: (i) That
would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at
a price of zero; (ii) worse than the synthetic best bid or offer
(``SBBO'') or equal to the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer
Order at the SBBO, except all-or-none complex orders may only
execute at prices better than the SBBO; (iii) that would cause any
component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price worse
than the individual component prices on the Simple Book; (iv) worse
than the price that would be available if the complex order Legged
into the Simple Book; or (v) that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price ahead of a Priority
Customer Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of at
least one component of the complex strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     each option leg executes at a price at or between the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') for the applicable series; and
     the execution price is better than the price of any
complex order resting in the complex order book (``COB''), unless the
RFC order is a Priority Customer Order and the resting complex order is
a non-Priority Customer Order, in which case the execution price may be
the same as or better than the price of the resting complex order.
    The System cancels an RFC order if it cannot execute.\13\ This
provision provides that RFC orders must execute in accordance with the
same priority principles that apply to all other complex orders on the
Exchange, with additional restrictions so that no leg may trade at the
same price as a resting Priority Customer order, which protects
Priority Customer orders in the simple book and COB and prohibits
trades through prices available in the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(1)(b) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m) also provides the following:
     The execution of an RFC order must happen
contemporaneously with the execution of the related futures position
portion of the exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(3); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(6). Current Rule 5.24(e)(1)(D)(6) provides that RFC
orders may only execute during the Regular Trading Hours session.
The purpose of that restriction was because the functionality was
intended to temporarily replicate trading that only occurred on the
trading floor, which is only available during Regular Trading Hours.
With permanent availability of this order instruction, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to make electronic RFC orders available
during the Global Trading Hours session as well. This will provide
market participants with flexibility to execute these orders at more
times, particularly given that futures may trade nearly 24 hours a
day. See CFE trading hours, available at https://www.cboe.com/trading-resources/cfe-expiration-holiday-calendars.

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

     An RFC order may only be entered in the standard increment
applicable to the class pursuant to Rule 5.33(f)(1)(A).\15\ Therefore,
RFC orders may only be submitted in the same increments as all other
complex orders in VIX and SPX, as applicable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(2). Rule 5.33(f)(1)(A) provides
that the minimum increment for bids and offers on a complex order,
and the increments at which components of a complex order may be
executed, is set forth in Rule 5.4(b). Rule 5.4(b) states except as
provided in Rule 5.33, the minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) for equity and
index options, and for Index Combo orders, is $0.01 or greater,
which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis,
and the legs may be executed in $0.01 increments. The minimum
increment for bids and offers on complex orders with any ratio less
than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) for
equity and index options (except for Index Combo orders) is the
standard increment for the class pursuant to paragraph (a), and the
legs may be executed in the minimum increment applicable to the
class pursuant to paragraph (a). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders in options
on the S&P 500 Index (SPX) or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO),
except for box/roll spreads, is $0.05 or greater, or in any
increment, which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(2); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The transaction involving the related futures position of
the exchange must comply with all applicable rules of the designated
contract market on which the futures are listed for trading.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(4); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 5.9 (related to exposure of orders on the Exchange)
does not apply to executions of RFC orders.\18\ An RFC order is
intended to provide a seamless mechanism to execute crosses without
exposure, so proposed change is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 5.33(m)(5); see also current Rule
5.24(e)(1)(D)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, market participants execute crosses related to an
exchange for related positions in open outcry on the Exchange's trading
floor. While in-crowd market participants have the opportunity to bid
or offer to participate on the trade, those participants generally
decline to participate upon hearing that the cross was part of an
exchange of related futures contracts. Therefore, in practice, the
orders execute as clean crosses. To provide for a seamless experience
in open outcry, the Exchange proposes to add RFC orders to the list of
complex orders it may make available in open outcry.\19\ RFC orders
will execute in open outcry in a substantially similar manner as they
do electronically. Specifically, proposed Rule 5.85(i) provides that an
RFC orders execute against each other without representation on the
trading floor if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 5.83(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Each option leg executes at a price that complies with
Rule 5.85(b),\20\ provided that no option leg executes at the same
price as a Priority Customer Order in the Simple Book;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Rule 5.85(b) provides that a complex order (1) with any
ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or
equal to three-to-one (3.00) or (2) that is an Index Combo order may
be executed at a net debit or credit price without giving priority
to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs that are
represented in the trading crowd or in the Book if the price of at
least one leg of the order improves the corresponding bid (offer) of
a Priority Customer order(s) in the Book by at least one minimum
trading increment as set forth in Rule 5.4(b). A complex order with
any ratio less than one-to-three (.333) and greater than three-to-
one (3.00) (except for an Index Combo order) may be executed in open
outcry on the trading floor at a net debit or credit price without
giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series
legs that are represented in the trading crowd or in the Book if
each leg of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) of a
Priority Customer order(s) in the Book on each leg by at least one
minimum trading increment as set forth in Rule 5.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     each option leg executes at a price at or between the NBBO
for the applicable series; and
     the execution price is better than the price of a complex
order resting in the COB, unless the RFC order is a Priority Customer
Order and the resting complex order is a non-Priority Customer Order,
in which case the execution price may be the same as or better than the
price of the resting complex order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RFC orders may not be executed unless the above criteria are
satisfied. These execution criteria are the same as the proposed
criteria for execution of RFC order electronically as described above,
except the proposed rule change references the complex order priority
applicable to open outcry trading rather than electronic trading.
However, RFC orders, whether executed electronically or in open outcry
may not trade, and may not have a leg trade, at the same price as a
resting Priority Customer order.
    Proposed Rule 5.85(i) adopts the following provision that
correspond to criteria applicable to electronic RFC orders, as
described above:
     An RFC order may only be entered in the standard increment
applicable to the class pursuant to Rule 5.4(b).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The execution of an RFC order must happen
contemporaneously with the execution of the related futures position
portion of the exchange.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The transaction involving the related futures position of
the exchange must comply with all applicable rules of the designated
contract market on which the futures are listed for trading.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 5.9 (related to exposure of orders on the Exchange)
does not apply to executions of RFC orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 5.85(i)(1)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allowing TPHs, and particularly market-makers, to exchange
synthetic futures (long (short) call, short (long) put--combos) for
listed futures replicates an execution opportunity available in an open
outcry environment market participants often use to obtain relief from
the effect of the current exposure method (``CEM'') on the options
market. However, the proposed RFC order will provide market
participants with opportunities to execute these necessary position
reducing trades in VIX and SPX options in a more efficient and seamless
manner, as it will not require exposure of these orders on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes there are multiple reasons that make the
proposed rule change to make RFC orders available permanently is
appropriate to maintain fair and orderly markets. First, existing
margin models do not fully recognize similar risks present in VIX and
SPX derivatives positions held by the Exchange's liquidity providing
community. This results in an overestimation of risk causing Clearing
TPHs to require out-sized margin deposits from their market-maker
clients, which restricts the liquidity market-makers can provide to the
markets. Second, because the Clearing TPHs carrying these positions are
bank-owned broker/dealers they are subject to further bank regulatory
capital requirements pursuant to CEM, which result in these additional
punitive capital requirements being passed on to their market-maker
clients.\26\ Finally, market volatility, such as the recent extreme
volatility experienced in the markets, can make providing liquidity in
VIX and SPX options immensely more challenging. The execution of
options trades independent of the underlying futures hedge introduces
additional risk to these transactions, which further reduces available
liquidity a liquidity provider may

provide to the market. The combination of these factors negatively
impacts the market-making community, which reduces liquidity available
in the market. This is particularly true in an extremely volatile
market, which is when the market needs this liquidity the most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Letter from Cboe, New York Stock Exchange, and Nasdaq,
Inc., to the Honorable Randal Quarles, Vice Chair for Supervision of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 18,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will allow liquidity
providers to execute trades tied to the underlying future (i.e.,
``delta-neutral'') in a substantially similar manner as they are
currently only able to do on the trading floor, which the Exchange
believes will considerably reduce the risk inherent in trying to
maintain a hedged portfolio. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will reduce existing inefficiencies in the execution of these
risk-reducing trades and provide market participants with additional
flexibility to execute them (either electronically or in open outcry).
As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
provide an additional method for liquidity providers to free up much
needed capital, which will benefit the entire market and all investors.
    The proposed rule will require that the executing TPH identify
these crosses as related to an exchange for related positions. As a
result, the Exchange's Regulatory Division has put in place a
regulatory review plan that will permit it to ensure any RFC orders
that are executed are done in conjunction with an exchange of contract
for related positions as required by the proposed rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This will be a continuation of the plan implemented in
connection with the temporary RFC orders that were available when
the trading floor was closed, which will apply to electronic and
open outcry RFC orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\28\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \29\ 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) \30\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change will provide liquidity
providers and other market participants with the ability to exchange
SPX and VIX options positions with corresponding futures positions
electronically in a substantially similar manner as are able to do on
the trading floor was open. Additionally, the proposed rule change will
enhance the process by which market participants are currently able to
effect these exchanges on the trading floor. These exchanges allow
market participants to reduce options positions in their hedged
portfolios while maintaining the same risk exposure, which would reduce
the necessary capital associated with those positions and permit them
to provide more liquidity in the market. This additional liquidity may
result in tighter spreads and more execution opportunities, which
benefits all investors, particularly in the current volatile markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is also consistent with the
Act in that it seeks to mitigate the potentially negative effects of
the bank capital requirements on liquidity in the VIX and SPX markets.
As described above, current regulatory capital requirements could
potentially impede efficient use of capital and undermine the critical
liquidity role that Market-Makers and other liquidity providers play in
the SPX and VIX options market by limiting the amount of capital
Clearing TPHs (``CTPHs'') allocate to clearing member transactions.
Specifically, the rules may cause CTPHs to impose stricter position
limits on their clearing members. In turn, this could force Market-
Makers to reduce the size of their quotes and result in reduced
liquidity in the market. The Exchange believes that permitting TPHs to
reduce options positions in SPX and VIX options that will permit them
to maintain a hedged portfolio would likely contribute to the
availability of liquidity in the SPX and VIX options market and help
ensure that these markets retain their competitive balance. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule would serve to protect
investors by helping to ensure consistent continued depth of liquidity,
particularly given current market conditions when liquidity is needed
the most by investors. As noted above, the Exchange temporarily offered
RFC orders in an all-electronic trading environment while the trading
floor was closed. During that time, TPHs executed 869,800 VIX contracts
as RFC orders. The Exchange estimates this equates to more than $80
million in capital that market participants were able to free up using
RFC orders, which capital they then had available to put back into the
market.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act, because the proposed procedure is consistent with
transactions that are otherwise permitted on the trading floor. The
proposed rule would provide an electronic mechanism to replicate a
process used on the trading floor and enhance the current process used
on the trading floor. The proposed rule change will protect Priority
Customer orders and orders on top of the book that comprise the BBO, as
well as Priority Customer orders on the top of the COB. Additionally,
the proposed rule change requires RFC orders to execute in the same
increments as all other complex orders. While these crosses must
currently be exposed on the trading floor, the Exchange observed that
market participants generally deferred their allocations to permit a
clean cross, as that is necessary for these transactions to achieve
their intended effect. Because these orders were generally not broken
up on the trading floor, and because the purpose of these trades is
unrelated to profits and losses (making the price at which the
transaction is executed relatively unimportant like competitive
trades), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to not require
exposure of these orders in an electronic or open outcry setting. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change, which is limited to two
classes the Exchange believes are being significantly impacted by the
inability to execute these crosses, and to option orders that qualify
as combos tied to related futures positions, is narrowly tailored for
the specific purpose of facilitating the ability of liquidity providers
to reduce positions requiring significant capital as a result of
current bank regulatory capital requirements and the current historic
levels of market

volatility. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect
investors by contributing to the continued depth of liquidity in the
SPX and VIX options market.

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 the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, RFC orders will be available to all market participants.
As discussed above, while the proposed rule change is directed at
market-makers, all market participants may use these orders in the same
manner as long as all criteria of the proposed rule are satisfied. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition, as it will apply only to products
currently listed on the Exchange. Additionally, the proposed order is
intended to accommodate riskless transactions for which parties are not
seeking price improvement, but rather looking to swap risk exposure to
free up capital that will permit those parties to continue to provide
liquidity to the market, and thus is not intended to have a 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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-2020-060 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-2020-060. 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 offices 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-2020-060, and should be submitted
on or before August 11, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15687 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 63465]
[DOCID:fr15oc10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-137-000]

Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing

October 7, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2010, Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC
(Hill-Lake) filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) for
its Storage Services, proposing substantive revisions to its tariff for
administrative efficiency as more fully detailed in the application.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing 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). 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, October 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25962 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 332-333]
[DOCID:fr05ja09-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request for a Land Exchange at the
Moriarty Municipal Airport, Moriarty, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the exchange of property at the Moriarty
Municipal Airport, Moriarty, New Mexico. The City of Moriarty as
airport owner has requested to exchange land that was acquired for a
crosswind runway. Since this acquisition, it has been determined that
the planned alignment of the proposed crosswind runway does not meet
FAA crosswind criteria and requires realignment. Any and all lands to
be exchanged by the city require release from any and all provisions of
applicable Grant Agreements and Grant Assurances, and to change
forever, the lands requested to be released from aeronautical to
nonaeronautical use under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell
H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21 Century (AIR 21). The
City of Moriarty is requesting an exchange of 68.55 acres of land with
the State of New Mexico Land Office. These lands to be exchanged are
appraised at equal value and no monetary considerations are involved.
The City of Moriarty will also exchange 9.63 acres of land with an
individual property owner. These lands have also been appraised at
equal value and no monetary considerations are involved. The
acquisition of these lands by exchange and fee simple purchase of
additional property will align the future runway to meet FAA criteria
and user requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: Comments must be received on or before February
4, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Lacey D. Spriggs, Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division,
Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development Office, ASW-640, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0640.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must he
mailed or delivered to the Honorable Adan Encinias, Mayor, City of
Moriarty, PC Box 130, Moriarty, New Mexico 87035.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Conner, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, LA/NM Airports Development Office, ASW-640G,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0640.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to exchange of this property in that: The release of 78.48
acres from the Grant Agreement Grant Assurances and incorporation of
the same amount of land into dedicated airport property, all under the
provisions of AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The city of Moriarty as owner of the Moriarty Municipal Airport has
requested of the Federal Aviation Administration to exchange
approximately 78.48 acres for land of the same size adjacent to the
airport and an individual property owner. The exchange in addition to
separate fee simple acquisition, will provide the land needed for the
construction of the proposed crosswind runway. The lands of the tracts
requested to be released will be changed from aeronautical to non-
aeronautical use and the lands released from the conditions of the
Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. Upon this
exchange the Assurances of the Grant Agreements shall hereafter apply
to all new lands. All land to be acquired by exchange.

    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the
office of Mayor Adan Encinias, city of Moriarty, P.O. Box 130,
Moriarty, NM.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on December 11, 2008.
Kelvin Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-31241 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15281]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0415; FRL 9908-15-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Evansville Area; 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
Maintenance Plan Revision to Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request by Indiana to revise the 1997 annual fine particulate
matter maintenance air quality state implementation plan (SIP) for the
Evansville/Southwestern, Indiana Area to replace onroad emissions
inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with
inventories and budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. Indiana submitted the SIP revision
request for the Evansville, Indiana Area on July 2, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2014. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0415, by
one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-05904 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19174]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8290]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Centrack International, Inc., Alternafuels,
Inc., Intelligent Medical Imaging, Inc., and Optimark Data Systems,
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 4, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Centrack International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended February 28, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Alternafuels, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 31, 2003.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Intelligent Medical Imaging, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Optimark Data Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended August 31, 1999.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 4, 2011, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on April 15, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8290 Filed 4-4-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16712-16713]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0079]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved
Information Collection: Request for Revocation of Authority Granted

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests
approval to renew an ICR titled, ``Request for Revocation of Authority
Granted.''

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 19,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2023-0079 using any of the
following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``FAQ'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Secrist, Office of Registration
and Safety Information, DOT, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: FMCSA registers for-hire motor carriers of regulated
commodities under 49 U.S.C. 13902, surface freight forwarders under 49
U.S.C. 13903, and property brokers under 49 U.S.C. 13904. Each
registration is effective from the date specified under 49 U.S.C. 13905
(c). Subsection (d) of 49 U.S.C. 13905 also provides that on
application of the registrant, the Secretary may amend or revoke a
registration, and hence the registrant's operating authority. Form OCE-
46 allows these registrants to apply voluntarily for revocation of
their operating authority or parts thereof. If the registrant fails to
maintain evidence of the required level of insurance coverage on file
with FMCSA, its operating authority will be revoked involuntarily.
Although the effect of both types of revocation is the same, some
registrants prefer to request voluntary revocation. For various
business reasons, a registrant may request revocation of some part, but
not all, of its operating authority. This information collection, which
supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety, is being revised to reflect
modified estimates of burden hours and costs. For respondents, the
program adjustment has resulted in increased total burden hours and an
increase in respondent costs. The burden hour increase is due to an
estimated increase in the number of annual filings of Form OCE-46 from
5,901 to 8,699 per year, resulting in an increase of 2,798 responses
and 700 burden hours. The estimated annual labor cost for industry
resulting from submitting Form OCE-46 is $67,287, an increase of
$17,760. The total annual respondent cost has increased by $7,992. This
increase is due to the increase in the number of respondents filing
paper forms. While the online submission option exists, FMCSA still
estimates that approximately 2,310 respondents will continue to file
the form by mail, which incurs notarization and postage fees. For the
Federal Government, the program costs have increased by $19,707 due to
the increase in the number of forms received by FMCSA.
    Title: Request for Revocation of Authority Granted.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0018.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently-approved ICR.
    Respondents: For-hire motor carriers, freight forwarders, and
property brokers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,699.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes (0.25 hours).
    Expiration Date: September 30, 2023.
    Frequency of Response: Other (As needed).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,175.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this ICR.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.

Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2023-05581 Filed 3-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76187-76188]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) Program; Agency Information Collection Activities and Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT.
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) received no public
comments following the publication of its 60-day notice of proposed
information collection. As identified in the 60-day notice, the
information is currently being collected under an approved Information
Collection Request. OST requests that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) renew an Information Collection Request (OMB Control
Number 2105-0569) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and
requests additional comments and recommendations.

    On July 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (MAP-21).
MAP-21 authorized $750 million in FY 2013 and $1 billion in FY 2014 for
the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
program to pay the subsidy cost of supporting Federal credit. The TIFIA
program will provide Federal credit assistance in the form of direct
loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to eligible surface
transportation projects. This information collection relates to the
collection of information from entities interested in TIFIA credit
assistance and assists DOT in evaluating projects and project sponsors
for program eligibility and creditworthiness.
    A 60-day Federal Register notice was published on September 27,
2013, 2013 (78 FR 59751). Since the publication of the 60-day Federal
Register notice, no comments were received to the Docket (DOT-OST-2013-
0173) and therefore no review of comments was required, so none was
performed by the Department.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted by January 15, 2014 and
submitted to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with

the associated OMB Control Number 2105-0569. Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The TIFIA program manager via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act
program or TIFIA program .
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0569.
    Affected Public: State and local governments, transit agencies,
railroad companies, special authorities, special districts, and private
entities.
    Estimated Total Annual Number of Responses: 50 letters of interest
and 50 applications.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000 hours. Based on the
number and type of interested stakeholders that have contacted the
Department about this program, OST estimates that it will receive 50
applications and letters of interest and that it will generally not
take applicants more than 100 person-hours to assemble individual
applications and 20 person-hours to assemble individual letters of
interest. Therefore, the total annual hour burden of this collection of
applications is 6,000 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: The Department expects that this
information collection will occur on a rolling basis as interested
entities seek TIFIA credit assistance.
    Background: This is an existing information collection that was
originally approved through the emergency approval process on August 7,
2013. DOT has published a notice in the Federal Register (also
available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/tifia/fy2013_tifia_nofa_073112.pdf) to give project sponsors an opportunity to submit
Letters of Interest and applications for the newly authorized funding
as soon as possible. However, in addition to authorizing more funding
for TIFIA credit assistance, MAP-21 made some significant changes to
the TIFIA program's structure, including the terms and conditions
pursuant to which DOT can provide TIFIA credit assistance. DOT is
required to solicit letters of interest and applications for TIFIA
credit assistance from interested applicants. DOT has developed forms
that provide a way for interested applicants to submit information
required by DOT in order for DOT to evaluate that interested
applicant's application for TIFIA credit assistance. The forms for the
letter of interest and application are available for review at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/guidance_applications/tifia_applications.htm. DOT will use the collected information to evaluate
and select recipients for credit assistance as authorized under MAP-21.
Applicants may be asked to provide additional supporting evidence or to
quantify details during the review and negotiation process on a case-
by-case basis.
    MAP-21 establishes a multi-step application process for TIFIA
credit assistance. This process begins with the submission of a letter
of interest and determination of eligibility. Only after a project
sponsor has submitted a letter of interest and met all statutory
eligibility requirements will the project sponsor be invited to submit
an application.
    The letter of interest must (i) describe the project and the
location, purpose, and cost of the project, (ii) outline the proposed
financial plan, including the requested credit assistance and the
proposed obligor; (iii) provide a status of environmental review; and
(iv) provide information regarding satisfaction of other eligibility
requirements of the TIFIA credit program. Letters of Interest will be
submitted using the form on the TIFIA Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/guidance_applications/index.htm. DOT has
revised the form for the letter of interest to reflect changes made to
the TIFIA program by MAP-21. The letter of interest form requires
project sponsors to provide information demonstrating satisfaction (or
expected satisfaction if permitted by the statute) of each of the
eligibility requirements included in MAP-21. DOT estimates that the
letter of interest would require approximately 20 hours in each
instance to complete.
    If a project sponsor is invited to submit an application, DOT
estimates that each application will require approximately 100 hours to
complete. DOT uses the application to seek a project sponsor's contact
information for the applicant entity; project information including
name, location, description, rural project description (if applicable),
purpose (quantitative/qualitative details), cost and TIFIA credit
assistance request, project management and compliance monitoring plan,
maintenance and operations plan. DOT also expects project sponsors to
submit information confirming that the project satisfies eligibility
requirements including creditworthiness (rate covenant, coverage
requirements, investment grade rating(s)), fosters partnerships that
attract public and private investment, demonstrates that TIFIA
assistance would enable the project to proceed at an earlier date or
with reduced lifecycle costs and that TIFIA assistance would reduce the
contribution of Federal grant assistance.
    Sponsors also must report in the application the status of project
environmental review (NEPA), permits and approvals, transportation
planning and programming process approvals (STIP and TIP), construction
contracting process readiness, and expected project schedule. Project
sponsors are required to produce a financial plan including estimated
capital project cost, amount and type of credit assistance requested,
amount of TIFIA assistance requested, a summary table detailing sources
and uses of funds, cash flow pro forma, a supplementary narrative
detailing other borrowed funds and revenue sources (including pledged
repayment source).
    Finally, a project sponsor must indicate in the application the
proposed terms for the requested TIFIA credit instrument, reasons for
selecting the proposed type(s) of credit instrument, flexibility in
financial plan to support a reduced percentage-share of TIFIA credit
assistance, risks and mitigation strategies, details on the applicant's
organizational structure, including background information and legal
authority, organization and management, identity of the entity that
will serve as the applicant (public-sector agency or private-sector
firm),whether the applicant the same entity as the borrower (detail
project team members), prior experience, financial condition, and
litigation and/or conflicts.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2013.
Patricia Lawton,
Departmental PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29782 Filed 12-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 6108]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-952-000 ]

Essential Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Essential Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 21, 2012.
    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 Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2704 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 1422]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Maine Aviation Aircraft Charter, LLC for Commuter
Air Carrier Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2016-12-24), Docket DOT-
OST-2016-0114.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Maine
Aviation Aircraft Charter, LLC, fit, willing, and able, and awarding it
a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2016-0114 and addressed to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, M-30, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and should be
served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shabu Thomas, Air Carrier Fitness
Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 28, 2016.
Jenny T. Rosenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary forAviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-31977 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P