[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 39295]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-492-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on July 25, 2019, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in
the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to abandon three injection/
withdrawal wells number 8972, 9029, 9083 and a total of 1,854 feet of
associated 4.5-inch-diameter pipelines and appurtenances, all located
in its Laurel Storage Field in Hocking County, Ohio. Columbia states
that the proposed abandonment will not affect Columbia's ability to
continue to maintain the current quality of service to its storage
customers. Furthermore, there will be no change to the existing
boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer
boundaries, or the certificated capacity of the Laurel Storage Field as
a result of this abandonment, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web 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. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Sorana Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700,
Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: August 5, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17044 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Mary Waller, ( 703) 308 9354 Barbara Madden ( 703) 305 6463 Interregional Project Number 4 and Bayer CropScience Pesticide Petition Nos. 1E6247, 0F6126 and 4F4281 EPA has received pesticide petition ( PP# 1E6247) from Interregional Project No. 4, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 and petition ( PP# 0F6126 and 4F4281) from Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.399 by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of iprodione [ 3( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) N( 1 methylethyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide, its isomer 3( 1 methylethyl) N( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide, and its metabolite 3( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities pistachio at 0.20 parts per million ( ppm) ( 1E6247), and rapeseed ( canola) at 1.0 ppm ( 4F4281). Additionally, the EPA received a pesticide petition ( 0F6126) from Bayer CropScience to increase the tolerance level for almond, hulls from 2.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

EPA published a previous Notice of Filing proposing the establishment of tolerance for residues of iprodione in or on rapeseed ( canola) and increasing the tolerance levels for almond hulls in a Federal Register Notice of July 13, 2001 ( 66 FR 36769) ( FRL 6785 8) ( http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2001/ July/ Day 13/ p17634. htm).

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of iprodione in plants is well understood. EPA concluded that the residues of concern in plants are the parent, its isomer 3( 1 methylethyl) N ( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide, and its metabolite 3( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide.

2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method, gas liquid chromatography using an electron capture detector, is available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II, for enforcement purposes. 2 3. Magnitude of residues. Canola. a. Foliar application. Residue data were reported for 11 field trials conducted in the major canola production areas of Canada. Most of the trial locations also represent major canola production areas of the United States. Residues ranged from 0.05 ppm to 0.62 ppm. b. Seed treatment. Residue data were reported for 8 field trials conducted in EPA Regions II, V, VII, and XI. The seed were treated with iprodione and planted with equipment customarily used for canola seed. Mature canola seed generated from the treated seed was collected at normal commercial harvest and analyzed. Iprodione residues were non detectable in all samples. The LOD was estimated to be 0.005 ppm. c. Processing. A canola processing study was found to be adequate by the Agency to support a tolerance on canola. Combined residues do not concentrate in canola meal, crude oil, or refined oil. Food or feed additive tolerances are not necessary. ii. Almonds. A residue study was conducted at five field trial locations in California, the only state with commercial almond production. The product was applied four times as airblast applications using equipment customarily used to apply pesticides to almonds at a nominal rate of 1.0 lb ai/ A per application. This represents a rate increase compared to thecurrent label rate of 0.5 lb ai/ A per application. All resulting iprodione residues in/ on almond nutmeat samples were below the current tolerance of 0.3 ppm. Residues in almond hull samples ranged from 1.6 ppm to 3.9 ppm. iii. Pistachio. Magnitude of residue data on pistachios were collected from three field trials conducted in EPA region 10, two in California and one in Arizona. Two foliar directed applications of product were made at a rate of approximately 1.0 lb. ai/ A each, for a total of 2.0 lbs. ai/ A. The first application was made at early bloom in the California trials and to fruiting trees ( approximately 80 days post bloom) in the Arizona trial. In all trials, the second application was made 14 to 15 days before harvest. Iprodione equivalent residues in nutmeat samples ranged from 0.050 to 0.11 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Iprodione is of low acute toxicity placing the active ingredient in Toxicity Category III and IV. Iprodione is non irritating to the eyes and skin and is not a skin sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicty. Iprodione has been evaluated through a full battery of mutagenicity assays. Iprodione was not mutagenic or genotoxic in any assay in either the presence or absence of metabolic activation.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. a. Teratology  Rat. In a developmental toxicity study, pregnant rats were administered iprodione at dose levels of 0, 40, 90, and 200 mg/ kg/ day via gavage from day 6 through 15 of gestation. The dams were sacrificed on day 20 of gestation. There were no deaths. Body weights were comparable among the groups. There 3 were no significant differences observed in the mean number of viable fetuses, implantations, corpora lutea, resorptions, and pre and postimplantation losses were comparable among the groups. The developmental NOAEL was 90 mg/ kg/ day. A special prenatal developmental toxicity study, pregnant rats received iprodione via gavage at dose levels of 0, 20, 120, or 250 mg/ kg/ day during gestation days 6 through 19. For maternal toxicity, the NOAEL was 20 mg/ kg/ day and for developmental toxicity, the NOAEL was 20 mg/ kg/ day.

b. Teratology  Rabbit. In a developmental toxicity study, artificially inseminated female rabbits were administered iprodione at dose levels of 0, 20, 60, and 200 mg/ kg/ day via gavage from day 6 through 18 of gestation. On day 29 of gestation, the does were sacrificed. Seven high dose does aborted between days 17 and 23 of gestation, and prior to aborting all had displayed decreased urination and defecation. One mid dose doe [ day 28] and one control doe [ day 20] also aborted. All other does survived until study termination, and nine of the high dose does that did not abort displayed decreased urination and defecation. During the dosing period, the mid dose does gained less weight than the control, and the high dose does lost weight. The maternal NOAEL is 20 mg/ kg/ day and the developmental toxicity NOAEL was 60 mg/ kg/ day.

c. Two Generation Reproduction  Rat. In a 2 generation reproduction study, 28 rats/ sex/ group were administered iprodione via the diet at dose levels of 0, 300 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 3000/ 2000 ppm for two generations. The systemic maternal/ parental NOAEL was 300 ppm, and the LOAEL was 1000 ppm, based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption in both sexes and both generations. The reproductive [ offspring] NOAEL was 1000 ppm, and the reproductive LOAEL was 2000 ppm, based on decreased pup viability.

4. Subchronic toxicity. a. 90 Day Dietary  Rat. In a subchronic feeding study, 10 rats/ sex/ group were administered iprodione via the diet at dose levels of 0, 1000 ppm, 2000 ppm, 3000 ppm, and 5000 ppm for 90 days. The 5000 ppm dose group was terminated early [ week 8]. Dose related microscopic lesions were observed in the sex organs and adrenals of both sexes at the 2000, 3000, and 5000 ppm dose levels. The NOAEL is 1000 ppm.

b. 90 Day oral  Dog. In a subchronic feeding study, 2 Beagle dogs/ sex/ group were administered iprodione via the diet at dose levels of 0, 800 ppm, 2400 ppm, and 7200 ppm for 90 days. Body weights were comparable among the groups in both sexes. High dose dogs displayed increased alkaline phosphatase and transaminase values compared to the controls. There were no effects reported in clinical chemistry and urinalysis. No treatment related microscopic lesions were observed. The NOAEL is 2400 ppm.

5. Chronic toxicity. a. Chronic Toxicity  Dog. In a chronic feeding study, 6 Beagle dogs/ sex/ group were administered iprodione via the diet at dose levels of 0, 100 ppm, 600 ppm, and 3600 ppm for 12 months. There were no treatment related deaths, and no adverse effects were observed on body weight, food consumption, or clinical signs in either sex. At the highdose level, there were increases in absolute and relative liver weight, alkaline phosphatase, SGOT, SGPT and LDH enzyme levels, and increased absolute and relative adrenal weights. At 4 the mid and high dose levels, males displayed an increased number of erythrocytes with Heinz bodies and decreased prostate weights. The NOAEL is 100 ppm. In a second chronic feeding study designed to complement the study cited above, 6 dogs/ sex/ group were administered iprodione via the diet at dose levels of 0, 200 ppm, 300 ppm, 400 ppm, and 600 ppm for 12 months. There were no treatment related deaths, and no adverse effects were observed on clinical signs, body weight/ gain, and food consumption in either sex. At the high dose level, decreases were observed in the red blood cell parameters. The NOAEL for is 400 ppm.

b. Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Oncogenicity  Rat. In the combined chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats, iprodione was administered to 60 rats/ sex/ dose via the diet at dose levels of 0, 150, 300, and 1600 ppm for 24 months. Body weight gains were decreased in both sexes at the high dose level compared to the controls. There were no treatment related clinical pathology findings in either sex. At the terminal sacrifice, increased liver weight was observed in males at the mid and high dose levels. At the high dose level in males, testes with epididymides and thyroid weights were increased at the terminal sacrifice. At the terminal sacrifice, interstitial cell hyperplasia in the testes, reduced spermatozoa in the epididymides, and absent/ empty secretory colloid cells or reduced secretion in the seminal vesicles were observed in the mid and high dose males. Atrophy of the seminiferous tubules in the testes, with atrophy of the prostate and absence of spermatozoa in the epididymides were observed at the high dose level. Adrenal lesions were observed in both sexes at the mid and high dose levels, although the males displayed more lesions than the females. There was an increase in the incidence of both unilateral and bilateral benign interstitial cell tumors in the testes of males at the 1600 ppm dose level, however this effect should be considered a threshold phenomenon and not relevant at lower doses. The NOAEL is 150 ppm.

c. Oncogenicity  Mouse. Iprodione was administered in the diet to 50 mice/ sex/ dose for 99 weeks at dose levels of 0, 160 ppm, 800 ppm, and 4000 ppm. Decreased body weight gains were observed in both sexes at the highest dose level. There was an increase in the incidence of liver tumors in both sexes at the high dose level, which was accompanied by increases in several liver lesions. SGOT and SGPT levels were elevated at the high dose level in both sexes compared to the controls at the interim sacrifice. Liver weight was increased at the high dose level in both sexes at both the interim and terminal sacrifices. The NOAEL is 160 ppm.

6. Animal metabolism. A general metabolic pathway for Iprodione in the rat indicates that biotransformation results in hydroxylation of the aromatic ring, degradation of the isopropylcarbamoyl chain and rearrangement followed by cleavage of the hydantoin moiety. Additionally, structural isomers of Iprodione resulting from molecular rearrangement, as well as intermediates in the pathway, were detected.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The residues of concern in plants for tolerance setting purposes are the parent, its isomer 3( 1 methylethyl) N( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarbox amide, and its metabolite 3( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide. In animal commodities, tolerances are established on the parent, its 5 isomer 3( 1 methylethyl) N( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide, its metabolite 3( 3,5 dichlorophenyl) 2,4 dioxo 1 imidazolidinecarboxamide, and an additional metabolite N( 3,5 dichloro 4 hydroxyphenyl) ureidocarboxamide.

8. Endocrine disruption. In the carcinogenicity studies conducted for iprodione, the primary lesion at the level of the target organs ( testes, ovaries & adrenals) is likely to be related to an inhibition of steroid/ androgen biosynthesis. This inhibition of steroid/ androgen biosynthesis occurs only at high dose levels and is reversible within 24 hours. Iprodione is not expected to induce any adverse effects related to endocrine disruption in members of the general population via the consumption of food containing residues of this compound.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Bayer CropScience expects that potential residues resulting from the proposed use of iprodione on pistachios and canola will not significantly affect EPA's exposure and risk assessments for currently registered uses of iprodione.

i. Food. Dietary exposures for iprodione were reevaluated by EPA as part of the reregistration process ( 1998). The lifetime cancer risk from potential iprodione residues in foods with existing tolerances and drinking water was estimated to be 1.8 x 10 6. This cancer risk corresponds to a dietary exposure of 0.000041 mg/ kg/ day or 0.2% of the chronic reference dose ( RfD). A chronic dietary exposure analysis was conducted to determine the incremental risk resulting from the proposed uses on pistachios and canola. Chronic exposure estimates for these new uses were less than 0.01% of the RfD for all population subgroups examined. The corresponding lifetime cancer risk was estimated to be 1.0 x 10 8 for the U. S. population. Thus, the incremental chronic dietary risk resulting from the proposed uses on pistachios and canola does not increase the cancer risk to an unacceptable level. Acute dietary exposure was estimated for the population subgroup of concern, women 13 years of age and older. Utilizing the Tier 3 methodology ( Monte Carlo) for acute exposure, Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) up to the 99.9th percentile of exposure for this population subgroup were at least 351 for currently registered crops. Adding residues in pistachios and canola to the assessment also resulted in a MOE of 351 at the 99.9th percentile . The EPA has determined that a MOE of at least 300 is acceptable for iprodione.

ii. Drinking water. Iprodione, applied according to labeled use and good agricultural management practices, is predicted and demonstrated to present no significant, if any, concentrations in drinking water sources. Iprodione's physical chemical properties and actual measured environmental concentrations in field dissipation/ monitoring studies provide support for this conclusion. Five conservative aggregate exposure and risk assessments were conducted by EPA for the Iprodione RED. These risk assessments include combined exposures to iprodione through food and water in the diet: i) acute dietary; ii) chronic dietary; iii) cancer; iv) short term; and v) intermediate term risk. EPA concludes in the RED document that residues of 6 iprodione are not expected to exceed the Agency's drinking water level of concern for either acute or chronic exposure. EPA also concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of iprodione in drinking water ( when considered along with exposure from food) would not result in unacceptable short term and intermediate term aggregate human health risk estimates. Since the completion of the RED, EPA issued a Data Call In requiring the submission of 3,5 dichloroaniline ( 3,5 DCA) targeted surface and ground water monitoring studies relating to golf course use of iprodione products. Bayer has since submitted to the Agency an aerobic soil metabolism study and a soil adsorption/ desorption study conducted with 3,5 DCA. Risk analyses using these recent data and EPA's standard operating procedures confirm that there is no concern for contamination of drinking water resulting from the use of iprodione products on golf courses. Bayer CropScience expects that potential residues resulting from the proposed use of iprodione on pistachios and canola will not significantly affect EPA's exposure and risk assessments for drinking water.

2. Non dietary exposure. This assessment is not applicable since all residential uses of iprodione products have been cancelled.

D. Cumulative Effects The Agency has previously noted both structural and toxicological similarities between iprodione, procymidone and vinclozolin. There are clear differences in both the type and magnitude of effects observed after exposure to iprodione in contrast to vinclozolin and procymidone. Vinclozolin and procymidone are known to exert their identical endocrine effects via a blockage of the androgen receptor. By contrast, iprodione has poor binding affinity to the androgen receptor and the primary lesion appears to be a blockage of testosterone biosynthesis and secretion. Subsequently, Iprodione only appears to induce transient changes in plasma hormone levels until compensatory mechanisms take effect. Consequently, Bayer CropScience concludes that consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there is no reliable data to indicate that the toxic effects caused by Iprodione would be cumulative with those of any other compound.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Dietary exposures for iprodione were reevaluated by EPA as part of the reregistration process ( 1998). The lifetime cancer risk from potential iprodione residues in foods with existing tolerances and drinking water is estimated to be 1.8 x 10 6. This cancer risk corresponds to a dietary exposure of 0.000041 mg/ kg/ day or 0.2% of the chronic reference dose ( RfD). Chronic dietary exposure to iprodione residues in/ on pistachios and canola only was estimated to be less than 0.01% of the RfD for the U. S. population. The lifetime cancer risk from potential iprodione residues in pistachios and canola only was estimated to be 1.0 x 10 8 for the U. S. population and does not increase the overall risk significantly. The cancer risk estimates for currently registered crops, drinking water, and the proposed uses on pistachios and 7 canola are within the range the Agency considers acceptable for excess life time cancer risk. For crops with existing tolerances, acute dietary exposure at the 99.9th percentile was estimated to be 0.056839 mg/ kg/ day for women 13 years of age and older. This corresponds to a MOE of 351. Adding residues in pistachios and canola to the assessment also resulted in a MOE of 351. EPA determined that MOEs above 300 are not considered to be of concern. Iprodione uses are not expected to impact ground water. Upper bound estimates of iprodione in surface waters from conservative screening models indicate concentrations of a few parts per billion. Both the chronic and acute dietary exposure assessments clearly demonstrate a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the use of iprodione on currently registered crops plus proposed uses on pistachios and canola.

2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of Iprodione the available teratology and reproductive toxicity studies and the potential for endocrine modulation by Iprodione were considered. Developmental studies in two species indicate that Iprodione has no teratogenic potential, even at maternally toxic dose levels. Maternal and developmental NOELs and LOELs were generally comparable indicating no increased susceptibility of developing organisms. In addition the results of a recently completed study have confirmed that Iprodione has no effects on sex differentiation. Multigeneration rodent reproduction studies indicated that Iprodione has no adverse effects on reproductive performance, fertility, fecundity or sex ratio. Effects on pup weight and viability were only noted in the presence of severe parental toxicity. The mechanism of endocrine modulation associated with Iprodione ( inhibition of testosterone biosynthesis) appears to be distinct from that of anti androgens acting at the level of the androgen receptor and may help to explain the lack of adverse effects on reproductive function observed with Iprodione. Therefore, based upon the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from exposure to residues of Iprodione and no additional uncertainty factor is warranted. The EPA Health Effects Division ( HED) determined that the developmental NOAEL for iprodione was relevant only to women of childbearing age and concluded that the developmental NOAEL is not relevant to acute dietary exposures to infants and children. Because no non developmental acute effects have been identified, there is no acute toxicological endpoint to assess acute dietary risk to infants and children. Based on the chronic exposure assessment conducted by EPA for uses currently registered, aggregate exposure to iprodione from food utilizes 1.6% of the RfD for non nursing infants less than 1 year old and less than 1% for all other population subgroups. Chronic dietary exposure to iprodione residues in/ on pistachios and canola only was estimated to be less than 0.01% of the RfD. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD. Since the potential for exposure to iprodione in drinking water is low and there is no risk from non dietary, non occupational exposure, the aggregate exposure is expected to be well below 100% of the RfD when accounting for the proposed uses on pistachios and canola. Thus, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to iprodione residues.

F. International Tolerances 8 An MRL of 1.0 ppm is established in Canada for iprodione in rapeseed oil [ canola]. A Codex MRL of 0.5 ppm is established for iprodione in rapeseed oil. A Codex MRL is not established for iprodione on pistachios. A Codex MRL for iprodione on almonds is established at 0.2 ppm.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57951-57952]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2867-004.
    Applicants: Bluegrass Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Rate Schedule After
Commercial Operation to be effective 10/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2649-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection Reliability
Operating Limit Critical Resource Cost Recovery to be effective 10/18/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2650-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE
to Define Aggregator of Retail Customers to be effective 10/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2651-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Union
Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii) 2023-
08-18_SA 4154 UEC-MEC-AECI TIA to be effective 10/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2652-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SR Cedar Springs Affected System
Construction Agt (GPAS 015) Termination Filing to be effective 10/17/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2653-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii) Wirth Forestry Solar LGIA
Filing to be effective 8/7/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2654-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OA, Sch. 12 &
RAA, Sch. 17 for 1 & 2Q 2023 re: Member Lists to be effective 6/30/
2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2655-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Green Acres CIAC to be
effective 8/15/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2656-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Remand Compliance Filing LGE and KU
Joint Rate Schedule FERC No. 525 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2657-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy LNG, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emera Energy LNG, LLC--
Amended Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2658-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 11--Amended Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/
18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5163
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2659-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 12--Amended Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/
18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2660-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 13--Amended Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/
18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2661-000.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 15--Amended Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/
18/2023.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5177.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18255 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50914-50915]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-26-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-01 Congestion
Revenue Rights Auction Efficiency Track 1B Modification to be effective
1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-28-000.
    Applicants: Flanders Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Application to be effective 10/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-29-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline--Montana OATT to
be effective 10/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-30-000.
    Applicants: R-WS Antelope Valley Gen-Tie, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificates of Concurrence
for Shared Facilities Agreements to be effective 10/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-31-000.
    Applicants: Oregon Clean Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Tariff
Application to be effective 12/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-32-000.
    Applicants: Benson Power, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-33-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline--Other Rate
Schedules (South Dakota) to be effective 10/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181002-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 2, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21932 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28499]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12092]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Data Fortress Systems Group Ltd., Digital Youth Network Corp.,
Fantom Technologies, Inc., and KIK Technology International, Inc.,
Order of Suspension of Trading

May 12, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Data Fortress Systems Group Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Digital Youth Network Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended May 31, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Fantom Technologies Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
KIK Technology International, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended January 31, 2008.
    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 May 12, 2011 and terminating at
11:59 p.m. EDT on May 25, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12092 Filed 5-12-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54791-54793]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23732]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84487; File No. SR-ISE-2018-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchanges Schedule of Fees To Modify the Crossing Fee Cap

October 25, 2018.
    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 11, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to
modify the Crossing Fee Cap, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees to exclude Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Makers \3\ from the
Crossing Fee Cap in Section IV.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, Crossing Orders are contracts that are
submitted as part of a Facilitation, Solicitation, Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM''), Block or QCC order. As set forth in Section IV.H
of the Schedule of Fees, the Exchange currently caps Crossing Order
fees at $90,000 per month per member on all Firm Proprietary and Non-
Nasdaq Market Maker transactions that are part of the originating or
contra side of a Crossing Order.\4\ The following fees are not included
in the calculation of the monthly Crossing Fee cap: (1) Fees for
Responses to Crossing Orders, (2) surcharge fees for licensed products
and the fees for index options as set forth in Section III, and (3)
service fee.\5\ For purposes of the Crossing Fee Cap the Exchange
attributes eligible volume to the ISE Member on whose behalf the
Crossing Order was executed.\6\ The Exchange now seeks to exclude Non-
Nasdaq ISE Market Maker transactions from the Crossing Fee Cap, and
make related changes to remove references to Non-Nasdaq ISE Market
Maker contracts throughout its Schedule of Fees where the Crossing Fee
Cap is described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Members that elect prior to the start of the month to pay
$65,000 per month will have these crossing fees capped at that level
instead. All eligible volume from affiliated Members will be
aggregated for purposes of the Crossing Fee Cap, provided there is
at least 75% common ownership between the Members as reflected on
each Member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    \5\ A service fee of $0.00 per side applies to all order types
that are eligible for the fee cap. The service fee does not apply
once a Member reaches the fee cap level and does apply to every
contract side above the fee cap. A Member who does not reach the
monthly fee cap will not be charged the service fee. Once the fee
cap is reached, the service fee applies to eligible Firm Proprietary
and Non-Nasdaq ISE market Maker orders in all Nasdaq ISE products.
The service fee is not calculated in reaching the cap.
    \6\ The Exchange's fee cap is functionally similar to the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in place at Cboe Exchange
(``CBOE''), and the Monthly Firm Fee Cap in place at Nasdaq PHLX
(``Phlx''). See CBOE Fees Schedule, Equity Options Rate Table,
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap, footnote 11; and Phlx
Pricing Schedule, Section II, Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it

provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Crossing Fee Cap was established to reward members for
executing a high volume of Firm Proprietary and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market
Maker Crossing Orders on the Exchange. However, the Exchange has
determined that this program has not proven to be effective in
encouraging Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker volume in Crossing Orders and
therefore believes it is reasonable to eliminate the Crossing Fee Cap
for these market participants. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to no longer apply the Crossing Fee Cap to Non-Nasdaq
ISE Market Maker transactions because other options exchanges offer
similar fee caps that only apply to firm proprietary orders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Equity Options Rate Table, Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap, footnote 11 (providing in relevant
part that the ``. . . Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap in all
products except Underlying Symbol List A (34) excluding binary
options (the ``Fee Cap'') and Sector Indexes (47), the Cboe Options
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale for Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary Orders (the ``Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale''), the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary VIX Sliding
Scale (the ``VIX Sliding Scale''), and the Supplemental VIX Total
Firm Discount (the Supplemental VIX Discount'') apply to (i)
Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary orders (``F'' origin
code), and (ii) orders of Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates of a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder. A ``Non-Trading Permit Holder
Affiliate'' for this purpose is a 100% wholly owned affiliate or
subsidiary of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder that is registered as
a United States or foreign broker-dealer and that is not a Cboe
Options Trading Permit Holder. Only proprietary orders of the Non-
Trading Permit Holder Affiliate that clear through a Cboe Options-
registered OCC clearing number(s) will be included in calculating
the Fee Cap, Proprietary Products Sliding Scale, VIX Sliding Scale,
and Supplemental VIX Discount.''). In addition, Phlx's Monthly Firm
Fee Cap is only offered to firm proprietary orders. See Phlx Pricing
Schedule, Section II, Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fee change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply
uniformly to all members engaged in Firm Proprietary trading in options
classes traded on the Exchange. The Exchange's decision to no longer
apply the Crossing Fee Cap to Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker orders is not
unfairly discriminatory because as noted above, the Exchange has
determined that this program has not proven to be effective in
encouraging Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker volume in Crossing Orders and
as a matter of practice, members submitting Firm Proprietary orders are
most likely to use or pre-pay the Crossing Fee Cap. As such, the
Exchange believes there will be minimal impact on removing this fee cap
for Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker orders. Moreover, the proposed variance
between Firm Proprietary and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker participants
does not misalign pricing in that Firm Proprietary orders already
benefit from certain pricing advantages that Non-Nasdaq ISE Market
Makers do not also enjoy, such as a PIM and Facilitation rebate as well
as a lower complex order maker fee.\10\ Such differentiated pricing
exists today on another options exchange.\11\ The Exchange believes
there is nothing impermissible about ISE offering the Crossing Fee Cap
solely to Firm Proprietary transactions given that this practice is
consistent with the above examples and the fee caps in place at other
options exchanges.\12\ Furthermore, to the extent the Crossing Fee Cap
provides an incentive for Firm Proprietary orders to transact order
flow on the Exchange, such order flow brings increased liquidity to the
benefit of all market participants, including Non-Nasdaq ISE Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Schedule of Fees, Section IV.B. See Schedule of Fees,
Section II (assessing Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker orders a complex
order maker fee of $0.20 per contract in Select Symbols, while Firm
Proprietary orders are assessed the lower $0.10 per contract maker
fee).
    \11\ CBOE assesses a reduced transaction fee to Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary participants, which clear in the Firm
range at The Options Clearing Corporation, of $0.43 per contract for
electronic Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for electronic Non-
Penny Classes. In contrast, CBOE assesses Non-Trading Permit Holder
Market Makers a $0.47 per contract fee for electronic Penny Classes
and a $0.75 per contract fee for electronic Non-Penny Classes. See
CBOE Fees Schedule.
    \12\ See note 9 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Although the Exchange is no
longer including Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker transactions in the
Crossing Fee Cap, as described above, the Exchange notes that other
options exchanges offer similar fee caps that apply only to firm
proprietary orders and the Exchange therefore seeks to modify its fee
cap for competitive reasons.\13\ The Exchange notes that it operates in
a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. For
the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fee change reflects this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 9 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-87 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-ISE-2018-87. 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-ISE-2018-87 and should be submitted on
or before November 21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23732 Filed 10-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26971-26972]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-822-000]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on April 29, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) \1\
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC filed a petition
for declaratory order (Petition) finding that the Commission has
concurrent jurisdiction with U.S. Bankruptcy Courts under Sections 4
and 5 of the Natural Gas Act \2\ and Part 154 of the Commission's
regulations,\3\ regarding Rockies Express `negotiated rate firm
transportation service agreement with Ultra Resources, Inc., all as
more fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2019). As required by Rule 381.302(a), 18
CFR 381.302(a) (2019).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717c and 717d (2012).
    \3\ 18 CFR part 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Petitioner.
    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 may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 29, 2020.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09656 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83091-83092]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0161]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Export of Food and
Drug Administration-Regulated Products: Export Certificates

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by January 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0498. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Export of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products: Export
Certificates

OMB Control Number 0910-0498--Extension

    Sections 801(e) and 802 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381(e) and 382) pertain to the export of FDA-
regulated products and are intended to ease restrictions on
exportation. The provisions also require the Agency to issue written
export certifications within 20 days of any request. In January 2011,
section 801(e)(4)(A) was amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization
Act (Pub. L. 111-353) to provide authorization for export certification
for food and animal feed, as well as certain unapproved products. To
offset Agency resource expenditures for processing certifications
requests, the statute provides that FDA may charge firms a fee not to
exceed $175.
    There are four FDA forms (Form FDA 3613, 3613a, 3613b, and 3613c)
related to exporting FDA-regulated products. A description of each form
is provided below. To obtain a fillable PDF file of each form, visit
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/exporting-cber-regulated-products/fda-forms-certificates-exporting. To learn more about how to
complete these forms, visit https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/exporting-cber-regulated-products/how-complete-fda-export-certificate-forms.

                     Table 1--Certificates and Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type of certificate                          Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Supplementary Information Certificate  For the export of products
 to Foreign Government Requests``.        legally marketed in the United
``Exporter's Certification Statement      States.
 Certificate to Foreign Government``..
``Exporter's Certification Statement
 Certificate to Foreign Government (For
 Human Tissue Intended for
 Transplantation)``..
``Supplementary Information Certificate  For the export of products not
 of Exportability Requests``.             approved for marketing in the
Exporter's Certification Statement        United States (unapproved
 Certificate of Exportability``..         products) that meet the
                                          requirements of sections
                                          801(e) or 802 of the FD&C Act.
``Supplementary Information Certificate  Conforms to the format
 of a Pharmaceutical Product``.           established by the World
``Exporter's Certification Statement      Health Organization and is
 Certificate of a Pharmaceutical          intended for use by the
 Product``.                               importing country when the
                                          product in question is under
                                          consideration for a product
                                          license that will authorize
                                          its importation and sale or
                                          for renewal, extension,
                                          amending, or reviewing a
                                          license.
``Supplementary Information Non-         For the export of a non-
 Clinical Research Use Only               clinical research use only
 Certificate``.                           product, material, or
``Exporter's Certification Statement      component that is not intended
 (Non-Clinical Research Use Only)``.      for human use and which may be
                                          marketed in, and legally
                                          exported from the United
                                          States under the FD&C Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appropriate centers within FDA review product information submitted
by firms in support of the firms' certificate requests. We rely on
respondents to certify their compliance with all applicable
requirements of the FD&C Act both at the time the certification request
is submitted to FDA and at the time the certification is submitted to
the respective foreign government. Information regarding FDA's Export
Certificates may be found on our website at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/fda-export-certificates.
    On September 16, 2020, we submitted an information collection
request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise certain
data elements as may be applicable under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Because Section 3856 of the
CARES Act contained immediately effective provisions obligating FDA to
review and process certification requests, we requested emergency
processing by OMB under 5 CFR 1320.13 for the respective information
collection. Our information collection request was granted by OMB on
September 29, 2020. Therefore, in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1),
we invite comment on the burden we attribute to the information
collection, which we estimate as follows:

                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
           FDA center                Number of     Responses per    Total Anual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    Respondents     Respondent       responses     per  response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Biologics Evaluation            2,651               1           2,651               1           2,651
 and Research...................
Center for Devices and                    11,175               1          11,175               2          22,350
 Radiological Health............
Center for Drug Evaluation and             3,680               1           3,680               1           3,680
 Research.......................
Center for Veterinary Medicine..           1,925               1           1,925               1           1,925
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          30,606
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on our current evaluation of the information collection, we
have made no adjustments since our last request for OMB review and
approval.

    Dated: December 14, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-28064 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52291]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-234-000]

GSP Newington 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
GSP Newington LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 24, 2017.
    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
5 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 electronic 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 protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24456 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation: DPC Midstream 08/06/10

Date	Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #)	Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 	Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)	Written Comments Provided?

Did they also submit to Docket?	Date sent to EPA- CCD

8/6/10

Paul Gunning

EPA

	John Admire

DCP Midstream

Jerry Barmhill

DCP

Joshua Epel

DCP

Robert Wyman

Latham and Watkins

Michelle Moore

CEQ

The primary topic was the aggregation of processing plants with gas gathering and booster stations

See attached PDF Presentation

Written comments were submitted to the docket.

June 10, 2010


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66206-66207]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0031; OMB No. 1660-0080]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Surplus Federal Real Property Public
Benefit Conveyance and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program for
Emergency Management Use

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60 Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with changes, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the application process for the conveyance of
Federal real property for public benefit.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0031. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Dowdy, Realty Specialist,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected] .You may contact the Information Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Excess Federal real property is defined as
property that is no longer mission critical to the needs of the Federal
Government. The conveyance and disposal of excess real property is
governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (Property Act) as amended, 40 U.S.C. 541, et seq., 40 U.S.C. 553,
and applicable regulations (41 CFR parts 102-75.750 through
102.75.815). Under the sponsorship of FEMA, the Property Act gives the
Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) authority to
convey Federal real and related surplus property (without monetary
consideration) to units of state and local government for emergency
management response purposes, including fire rescue services. The scope
and philosophy of GSA's real property policies are contained in 41 CFR
part 102-71.
    The purpose of this application is to implement the processes and
procedures for the successful, lawful, and expeditious conveyance of
real property from the Federal Government to public entities such as
state, local, city, town, or other like government bodies as it relates
to emergency management response purposes, including fire and rescue
services. Compliance will ensure that properties will be fully
positioned to use at their highest and best potential as required by
GSA and Department of Defense regulations, Federal law, Executive
Orders, and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Surplus Federal Real Property Public Benefit
Conveyance and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program for
Emergency Management Use.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with changes, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0080.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-119-FY-22-133 (formerly 119-0-1), Surplus
Federal Real Property Application for Public Benefit Conveyance.
    Abstract: Use of the Application for Surplus Federal Real Property
Public Benefit Conveyance and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Program for Emergency Management Use is necessary to implement the
processes and procedures for the successful, lawful, and expeditious
conveyance of real property from the Federal Government to public
entities such as state, local, county, city, town, or other like
government bodies, as it relates to emergency management

response purposes, including fire and rescue services. Utilization of
this application will ensure that properties will be fully positioned
for use at their highest and best potential as required by General
Services Administration and Department of Defense regulations, public
law, Executive Orders, and the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 15.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 68.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $5,291.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $3,178.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-23816 Filed 11-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53792-53794]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21523]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72989; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

September 4, 2014
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 August 25, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/
rulefiling, at MIAX's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Adopt
transaction fees for market participants in non-Penny Pilot options
classes; (ii) provide for additional incentives for achieving certain
Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers; and (iii) to make a
minor technical change to delete obsolete language. The proposed
changes are based on the similar fees of other competing options
exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 4; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Fee Schedule, p. 2. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68556 (January 2, 2013), 78 FR 1293 (January 8, 2013)
(SR-BX-2012-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt transaction fees for Public
Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers,
Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms in non-Penny Pilot options
classes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess the following
fees for transactions in non-Penny Pilot options classes: (i) Public
Customers that are not a Priority Customer, $0.32 per contract for
standard options and $0.03 per contract for mini options; (ii) Non-MIAX
Market Makers, $0.62 per contract for standard options and $0.06 per
contract for mini options; (iii) Non-Member Broker-Dealers, $0.62 per
contract for standard options and $0.06 per contract for mini options;
and (iv) Firms, $0.32 per contract for standard options and $0.03 per
contract for mini options. The Exchange notes that the transaction fees
for Priority Customers and Market Makers will not change and thus both
will continue to be charged the same amount for non-Penny Pilot options
classes and Penny Pilot options classes as they do today.
    The Exchange proposes to offer MIAX Market Makers, Public Customers
that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member
Broker-Dealers, and Firms the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by
$0.02 per contract in standard options in non-Penny Pilot options
classes in the same manner as Penny Pilot options classes.\4\
Specifically, any Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common
ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume
tiers 3, 4, or 5 and is a Public Customers that are not a Priority
Customer or Firm will be assessed $0.30 per contract for standard
options in non-Penny Pilot options classes. Further, any Member or its
affiliates of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as
reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for
Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 and is a Non-
MIAX Market Makers or Non-Member Broker-Dealers will be assessed $0.60
per contract for standard options in non-Penny Pilot options classes.
The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage MIAX Market
Makers, Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX
Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms to transact a
greater number of orders on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-MIAX-2014-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a technical change to delete an obsolete
fee and date from the Options Regulatory Fee schedule of the Fee
Schedule. The Exchange believes that this change will reduce the
potential of confusion on behalf of market participants.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the new transaction fees
beginning September 1, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess transaction fees
in non-Penny Pilot options classes, which differs from Penny Pilot
options classes, is consistent with other options markets that also
assess different transaction fees for non-Penny Pilot options classes
as compared to Penny Pilot options classes. The Exchange believes that
establishing different pricing for non-Penny Pilot options and Penny
Pilot options is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because Penny Pilot options are more liquid options as compared to non-
Penny Pilot options. Additionally, other competing options exchanges
differentiate pricing in the similar manner today.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 4; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Fee Schedule, p. 2. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68556 (January 2, 2013), 78 FR 1293 (January 8, 2013)
(SR-BX-2012-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the transaction fees for Public

Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers,
Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms in non-Penny Pilot options classes
is reasonable because the Exchange's fees will remain competitive with
and in the range of similar transaction fees at other options
exchanges.\8\ The Exchange's proposal to increase the transaction fees
for Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market
Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms in non-Penny Pilot options
classes is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
increase applies equally to all such market participants, in each
category of market participant. The Exchange does not assess Priority
Customers transactions fees because Priority Customer order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers and other market participants. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Market Makers are assessed lower
transaction fees as compared to Public Customers that are not a
Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers,
and Firms because they have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\9\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. In addition, charging non-members higher transaction fees
is a common practice amongst exchanges because Members are subject to
other fees and dues associated with their membership to the Exchange
that do not apply to non-members. The proposed differentiation as
between Priority Customers, Market Makers, and other market
participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Exchange Rules 603 and 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer MIAX Market Makers, Public
Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-MIAX Market Makers,
Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms the opportunity to reduce
transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options in non-Penny
Pilot options classes in the same manner as Penny Pilot options
classes, provided certain criteria are met, is reasonable because the
Exchange desires to offer all such market participants an opportunity
to lower their transaction fees. The Exchange's proposal to offer MIAX
Market Makers, Public Customers that are not a Priority Customer, Non-
MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms the
opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in
standard options in non-Penny Pilot options classes, provided certain
criteria are met, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange will offer all market participants, excluding Priority
Customers, a means to reduce transaction fees by qualifying for volume
tiers in the Priority Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes
that offering all such market participants the opportunity to lower
transaction fees by incentivizing them to transact Priority Customer
order flow in turn benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow the aggregation of
trading activity of separate Members or its affiliates for purposes of
the fee reduction is fair, equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
reasonable because it would allow aggregation of the trading activity
of separate Members or its affiliates for purposes of the fee reduction
only in very narrow circumstances, namely, where the firm is an
affiliate, as defined herein. Furthermore, other exchanges, as well as
MIAX, have rules that permit the aggregation of the trading activity of
affiliated entities for the purposes of calculating and assessing
certain fees. The Exchange believes that offering all such market
participants the opportunity to lower transaction fees by incentivizing
them to transact Priority Customer order flow in turn benefits all
market participants.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that technical changes to delete an
obsolete fee and date from the Options Regulatory Fee schedule of the
Fee Schedule will protect investors and the public interest by
eliminating potential confusion that could be caused by the existing
language used to describe the Options Regulatory Fee.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is similar to the
transaction fees found on other options exchanges; therefore, the
Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with robust competition by
increasing the intermarket competition for order flow from market
participants. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden
on non-member market participants, the Exchange believes that this is
appropriate because charging non-members higher transaction fees is a
common practice amongst exchanges and Members are subject to other fees
and dues associated with their membership to the Exchange that do not
apply to non-members. To the extent that there is additional
competitive burden on market participants that are not Priority
Customers or Market Makers, the Exchange believes that this is
appropriate because the proposal should incent Members to direct
additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional
liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the
volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is
achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from
the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased
transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order
flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the
proposal reflects this competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend

such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2014-47 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-MIAX-2014-47. 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 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; 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 Number SR-MIAX-2014-47 and should be
submitted on or before October 1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21523 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P