[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50468-50469]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23584]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81948; File No. SR-BX-2017-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exchange's Name Change

October 25, 2017.
    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 18, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules as well as certain
corporate documents of the Exchange to reflect legal name changes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.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 this filing is to reflect in the Exchange's
governing documents (and the governing documents of its parent company)
\3\ and the Exchange's Rulebook a non-substantive corporate branding
change to the Exchange's name.\4\ Specifically, current references will
be changed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) The Certificate of
Incorporation; (ii) Second Amended Limited Liability Company
Agreement; (iii) By-Laws; and (iv) Rule Book.
    \4\ NASDAQ PHLX LLC and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC will also be
filing similar rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     References to ``NASDAQ'' will be changed to ``Nasdaq''.
     References to ``NASDAQ BX, Inc.'' or ``NASDAQ BX'' will be
changed to ``Nasdaq BX, Inc.'' or ``Nasdaq BX''.
     References to ``The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC'' or ``NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC'' will be changed to ``The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC''.
     References to ``NASDAQ PHLX LLC'' or ``NASDAQ PHLX'' will
be changed to ``Nasdaq PHLX LLC'' or ``Nasdaq PHLX''.
     References to ``The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.'' or ``NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc.'' will be changed to ``Nasdaq, Inc.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75421 (July 10,
2015), 80 FR 42136 (July 16, 2015) (SR-BSECC-2015-001, SR-BX-2015-
030, SR-NASDAQ-2015-058, SR-Phlx-2015-46, SR-SCCP-2015-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In addition to the preceding changes, all references to
``OMX'' will be removed from the Rulebook.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     References to ``NASDAQ Execution Services, LLC'' will be
changed to as ``Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC''.
     In all instances where the word ``the'' should have been
capitalized, (e.g., By-Law, Section 4.13(c)), the Exchange will make
the appropriate correction.
    No other changes are being proposed in this filing. The Exchange
represents that these changes are concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange and do not affect the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the
rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their
associated persons in any way. Accordingly, this filing is being
submitted under Rule 19b-4(f)(3). In lieu of providing a copy of the
marked changes, the Exchange represents that it will make the necessary
non-substantive revisions to the Certificate of Incorporation, Second
Amended Limited Liability Company Agreement, By-Laws and Rulebook and
post updated versions of each on the Exchange's Web site pursuant to
Rule 19b-4(m)(2).
    The Exchange notes that the following references are not being
amended in the Exchange's governing documents and the Exchange's
Rulebook:
     Any name with a trademark (TM) or service mark (SM)
attached to the name.
     Any references in the Certificate of Incorporation which
references a prior name of the Exchange and reflects a historical date
wherein that name was in effect.
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 Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest by
avoiding confusion with the name. The Exchange proposes to conform its
name to that of its parent, Nasdaq Inc., by changing the capitalization
in the word ``NASDAQ'' to ``Nasdaq.'' The Exchange also proposes to
amend the names of affiliated markets in a similar manner, by changing
the name ``NASDAQ'' to ``Nasdaq.'' The name change of the Exchange as
well as other name changes to related entities are non-substantive
changes. No changes to the ownership

or structure of the Exchange have taken place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 name change will align with
the parent company, Nasdaq, Inc.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3)
thereunder,\10\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
is concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization, and therefore has become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-BX-2017-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-046. 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. 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-BX-2017-046 and should be
submitted on or before November 21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2017-23584 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47146-47147]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-155-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.
    Filed Date: 9/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180911-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG18-124-000.
    Applicants: Birdsboro Power LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Birdsboro Power
LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2303-001.
    Applicants: Adams Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of
Adams Wind Farm, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2305-001.
    Applicants: Bobilli BSS, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of

Bobilli BSS, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2306-001.
    Applicants: Garwind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of
Garwind, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2308-001.
    Applicants: K&K Wind Enterprises, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of
K&K Wind Enterprises, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2309-001.
    Applicants: Rose Creek Wind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of
Rose Creek Wind, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2310-001.
    Applicants: Rose Wind Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of
Rose Wind Holdings, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2413-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Central California Transco, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to TO Tariff to be
effective 9/30/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180911-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2414-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: BPA NITSA (UIUC) Rev 9 to be
effective 8/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180912-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-56-000.
    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.
    Description: Supplement to August 16, 2018 Application for
Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of GridLiance
High Plains LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180907-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    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: September 12, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20197 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52771-52774]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20874]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0243; FRL-10000-23]

Furilazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
furilazole in or on sweet corn commodities. The Monsanto Company
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) requesting these tolerances.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 3, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 2, 2019,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0243, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0243 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 2, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0243, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 18, 2018 (83 FR 52787) (FRL-
9984-21), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
IN-11139) by Monsanto, 1300 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of furilazole when used as an inert ingredient
(safener) in pesticide formulations applied to corn, sweet, forage at
0.01 parts per million (ppm); corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed at 0.01 ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.01 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing the tolerances as requested.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for furilazole including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with furilazole follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicological profile of furilazole is discussed in the
final tolerance rule found in the Federal Register of October 10, 2007
(72 FR 57489) (FRL-8145-2). Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by furilazole as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are
discussed in the final rule published in Unit III.A. of that Federal
Register document and in the supporting documents for that rule. In
addition, due to the similarities between that rule and this, EPA is
incorporating the findings concerning the children's safety factor and
cumulative exposure into this rule because they also apply to this
rulemaking. The summary of toxicological endpoints the Agency used to
assess risk are discussed in the final tolerance rule found in the
Federal Register of April 3, 2002 (67 FR 15727) (FRL-6828-4).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure (food and drinking water). In evaluating
dietary exposure to furilazole, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance as well as the
already established tolerances for furilazole.
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
the general population for furilazole; therefore, a quantitative acute
dietary exposure assessment for the general population is unnecessary.
    However, such effects were identified for furilazole for females 13
to 50 years old. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-
2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA
conducted an unrefined acute dietary exposure and risk assessment
assuming 100 percent crop treated (PCT), default processing factors,
and tolerance-level residues for all food commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined
chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment assuming 100 PCT, default
processing factors (when available), and tolerance level residues for
all food commodities.
    iii. Cancer. As indicated in the 2002 Federal Register document,
EPA has concluded that furilazole should be classified as a possible
human carcinogen and a linear approach has been used the quantify
cancer risk since no mode of action data are available. The aggregate
cancer risk assessment for adults takes into account exposure estimates
from dietary consumption of furilazole from food and drinking water
sources. Dietary exposure assessments were quantified using the same
estimates as discussed in Unit III.B.1.ii, Chronic Exposure.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for furilazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of furilazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of furilazole
for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.2 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water; for chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.8 ppb for surface water
and 0.02 ppb for ground water; and for chronic exposures for cancer
assessments are estimated to be 0.22 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, a water concentration value of 1.2 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water, for the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.8 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.22 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). There
are no residential uses of furilazole; therefore, a residential
exposure assessment was not conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach

based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to furilazole and any other
substances; furilazole does not appear to produce any other toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that furilazole has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

C. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to furilazole will be less than 1% for females 13 to 49 years old, the
only population group of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
furilazole from food and water will utilize 13.3% of the cPAD for non-
nursing infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no expected residential uses and therefore chronic
residential exposure to residues of furilazole is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there
are no proposed or registered residential uses of furilazole a short-
term assessment was not performed. The chronic risk assessment is
protective for any short-term exposures from food and drinking water.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because there are no proposed or registered residential uses of
furilazole an intermediate-term assessment was not performed. The
chronic risk assessment is protective for any intermediate-term
exposures from food and drinking water. Furilazole is not currently
registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential
exposure, and the Agency has determined that intermediate-term
aggregate exposure assessment is not necessary.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. A cancer aggregate
assessment was conducted for furilazole since it is classified as a
``Group C, Possible Human Carcinogen'' with a Q\1\* of 0.0274 (mg/kg/
day)-1 based upon hepatocellular ademonas and carcinomas in
rats and mice, branchioalveolar adenomas and carcinomas in female mice,
testicular interstitial cell interstitial cell tumors in male rats, and
stomach tumors in female mice. The cancer risk estimate for adults is
1.1 x 10-6.
    EPA generally considers cancer risks (expressed as the probability
of an increased cancer case) in the range of 1 in 1 million (or 1 x
10-6) or less to be negligible. The precision which can be
assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the
nearest integral order of magnitude on the logarithmic scale; for
example, risks falling between 3 x 10-7 and 3 x
10-6 are expressed as risks in the range of 10-6.
Considering the precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated,
the conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding
procedure described above, cancer risk should generally not be assumed
to exceed the benchmark level of concern of the range of
10-6 until the calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 x
10-6. This is particularly the case where some conservatism
is maintained in the exposure assessment. EPA has concluded the cancer
risk for all existing furilazole uses and the uses associated with the
tolerances established in this action fall within the range of 1 x
10-6 and are thus negligible.
    EPA has concluded that using the nonlinear approach based on the
chronic RfD will be protective of potential carcinogenicity.
    Because the chronic risk is below the Agency's level of concern,
EPA concludes there is no aggregate cancer risk from exposure to
furilazole.
    6. Determination of safety. Taking into consideration all available
information on furilazole, EPA has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will
result from aggregate exposure to furilazole.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (capillary gas chromotography
using electron capture detection) is available to enforce the tolerance
exemption expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established any MRLs for furilazole.

C. Response to Comments

    Three comments were submitted to the docket for this action. One
dealt with ``relaxing'' current EPA standards; another argued that
inert ingredients should be regulated through tolerances. A third
comment took issue with data submitted about the toxicity of
``Florazole'' (which EPA assumes is a typographical error and is meant
to apply to furilazole).
    This action establishes tolerances for an inert ingredient used as
a safener in pesticide products; it is not relaxing EPA standards or
ignoring the potential adverse effects of inert ingredients. Inert
ingredients are evaluated under the same safety standard as active
ingredients under the FFDCA. Under the existing legal framework
provided by FFDCA section 408, EPA is authorized to establish pesticide
chemical tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such tolerances
or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide chemical meets the
safety standard imposed by the statute. EPA has evaluated the potential
adverse

effects from exposure to this pesticide chemical, taking into
consideration data on the potential for developmental toxicity and
carcinogenicity. No new toxicity data were submitted in connection with
the present petition. After evaluating the available data and other
information, EPA has determined that the tolerances for this chemical
are safe. The commenters have provided no other information for the
Agency to consider in making its safety determination.

V. Conclusion

    Based on available data, the Agency concludes that tolerances for
residues of furilazole as discussed in this document are safe.
Accordingly, the Agency is establishing tolerances for residues of
furilazole in or on corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.01 ppm. In addition,
EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify that (1) as
provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites
and degradates of furilazole not specifically mentioned and (2)
compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance
expression. EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this
change final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because public comment is not necessary, in that the change has no
substantive effect on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to
clarify the existing tolerance expression.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.471(a):
0
 a. Revise the introductory text; and
0
 b. Add alphabetically the entries ``Corn, sweet, forage''; ``Corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed''; and ``Corn, sweet,
stover'' to the table.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.471  Furilazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of furilazole,
including its metabolites and degradates, when used as an inert
ingredient (safener) in pesticide formulations applied to the following
raw agricultural commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the table in this paragraph (a) is to be determined by
measuring only furilazole, 3-dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2, 2-
dimethyloxazolidine (CAS Reg. No. 121776-33-8) in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, forage.........................................        0.01
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.............        0.01
Corn, sweet, stover.........................................        0.01

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-20874 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57882-57885]
[DOCID:fr23se10-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0855; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-066-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections
for discrepancies of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle strut, and corrective actions if necessary.
This proposed AD would add replacing the midspar fuse pins with new,
improved fuse pins, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.
This proposed AD results from a report of corrosion damage of the
chrome runout on the head side found on all four midspar fuse pins of
the nacelle strut. Additionally, a large portion of the chrome plate
was missing from the corroded area of the shank. We are proposing this
AD to prevent damage of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard
midspar fittings of the nacelle strut, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the fuse pins, and consequent loss of the strut
and separation of the engine from the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 8,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6450; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0855;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-066-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 29, 2008, we issued AD 2008-21-03, amendment 39-15687
(73 FR 59493, October 9, 2008), for all Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for
discrepancies of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle strut, and corrective actions if necessary.
That AD resulted from a report of corrosion damage of the chrome runout
on the head side found on all four midspar fuse pins of the nacelle
strut. Additionally, a large portion of the chrome plate was missing
from the corroded area of the shank. We issued that AD to detect and
correct discrepancies of the fuse pins of the inboard and outboard
midspar fittings of the nacelle strut, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the fuse pins, and consequent loss of the strut
and separation of the engine from the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    In the preamble to the NPRM of AD 2008-21-03, the FAA specified
that the actions required by that AD were considered ``interim action''
and that the manufacturer was developing a modification to address the
unsafe condition. The FAA indicated that it may consider further
rulemaking action once the modification was developed, approved, and
available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and
the FAA has determined that further rulemaking action is indeed
necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-54A1044,
Revision 2, dated January 20, 2010. The repetitive detailed inspections
and corrective actions are similar to those described in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1044, dated December 10, 2007
(referenced in AD 2008-21-03 as the appropriate source of service
information). Revision 2 of the service bulletin adds procedures for
replacing the midspar fuse pins with new, improved fuse pins.
Replacement with the new, improved fuse pin eliminates the need for
repetitive detailed inspections.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2008-21-03 and would retain the requirements of the
existing AD. This proposed AD would also require replacing the midspar
fuse pins with new, improved fuse pins, which would terminate the
requirement for repetitive detailed inspections.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2008-21-03.
Since AD 2008-21-03 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraph (f) of
the existing AD has been re-identified as paragraph (g) in this NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,961 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                            Average labor                                                 U.S.-
              Action                      Work hours        rate per hour          Parts           Cost per airplane    registered       Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive detailed inspections     4....................             $85  None................  $340, per inspection          616  $209,440, per
 (required by AD 2008-21-03).                                                                     cycle.                             inspection cycle.
Midspar fuse pin replacement (new   1 per pin (up to 4                 85  $843 per pin........  Up to $3,712........          616  Up to $2,286,592.
 proposed action).                   pins per airplane).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-15687 (73 FR
59493, October 9, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0855; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-066-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
8, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-21-03, Amendment 39-15687.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54:
Nacelles/Pylons.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of corrosion damage of the
chrome runout on the head side found on all four midspar fuse pins
of the nacelle strut. Additionally, a large portion of the chrome
plate was missing from the corroded area of the shank. The Federal
Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent damage of the
fuse pins of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the
nacelle strut, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the fuse pins, and consequent loss of the strut and separation of
the engine from the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-21-03

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions, With Revised Service
Information

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1044, dated December 10, 2007; except, where the service bulletin
specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin,
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after November 13, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-21-03): Do a
detailed inspection for discrepancies of the fuse pins of the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle strut by doing
all the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1044, dated December 10, 2007; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-54A1044, Revision 2, dated January
20, 2010. Do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight. Repeat the inspection at the time specified in paragraph
1.E. of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1044, dated
December 10, 2007. Accomplishing the actions of paragraph (h) of
this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

New Requirements of This AD

Replacement

    (h) Within 120 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace all midspar fuse pins having part number (P/N) 311A1092-2
with a midspar fuse pin having P/N 311A1092-3, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-54A1044, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2010. Accomplishing the
requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD for that fuse pin.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Revision of Service
Information

    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1044, Revision 1, dated November 26, 2008, are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved in accordance with the requirements of AD
2008-21-03 are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 15, 2010.
Robert D. Breneman,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-23841 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16291-16295]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05336]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97109; File No. SR-BX-2023-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 2 Regarding PRISM Pricing

March 10, 2023.
    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 March 1, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 2.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, 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 Exchange proposes to amend BX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 2, BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates. Specifically, BX
proposes to amend its BX Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM'') \3\
pricing to: (1) amend PRISM Order \4\ fees; and (2) specify the pricing
related to unrelated market or marketable interest. Each change is
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Participant may electronically submit for execution an
order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer, broker
dealer, or any other entity (``PRISM Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in sub-
paragraph (i)(F) to Options 3, Section 13) it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PRISM Order for
electronic execution into the PRISM Auction (``Auction'') pursuant
to Options 3, Section 13.
    \4\ A PRISM Order is one-side of a PRISM Auction Order that
represents an agency order on behalf a Public Customer, broker-
dealer or other entity which is paired with an Initiating Order. A
PRISM Auction Order is a two-sided, paired order comprised of a
PRISM Order and an Initiating Order. See Options 7, Section 2(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRISM Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend PRISM Order fees. Currently, a
Customer is not assessed a PRISM Order fee and a Lead Market Maker,\5\
BX Options Market Maker \6\ and Non-Customer \7\ are assessed a $0.30
per contract PRISM Order fee.\8\ At this time, the Exchange proposes to
assess no market participant a PRISM Order fee. Therefore, Customers,
Lead Market Makers, BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers would
pay a PRISM Order fee of $0.00 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' or (``LMM'') applies to a
registered BX Options Market Maker that is approved pursuant to
Options 2, Section 3 to be the LMM in an options class (options
classes). See Options 7, Section 1(a).
    \6\ The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to Options 2, Section 1, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to Options 2, Section 9. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
See Options 7, Section 1(a).
    \7\ The term ``Non-Customer'' shall include a Professional,
Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options Market Maker. See Options 7,
Section 1(a).
    \8\ Today, the PRISM Order fee for Submitted PRISM Order is
applicable to any contract(s) for which a rebate is provided for
PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to remove the current language in the
Pricing Schedule which states, ``BX will apply the rebate to market
participants that submitted a PRISM Order pursuant to a PRISM Auction
and the PRISM Order traded with PRISM Response. The PRISM Order fee for
Submitted PRISM Order will be applicable to any contract(s) for which a
rebate is provided for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response.'' The
first sentence is unnecessary as the pricing within Options 7, Section
2(5) clearly reflects the rebates. With this proposal, the second
sentence is unnecessary as the Exchange proposes to assess no market
participant a PRISM Order fee.
Unrelated Market or Marketable Interest
    Next, the Exchange proposes to state the manner in which the
Exchange assesses fees and pays rebates with respect to unrelated
market or marketable interest received prior to the commencement of a
PRISM Auction and during a PRISM Auction. Options 7, Section 2(5) does
not currently detail such pricing.
    Today, when a PRISM Order is a Customer order and executes against
unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction, the Customer order will receive a rebate of $0.35 per contract
for Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for Non-Penny Classes, which
represents the pricing within Options 7, Section 2(5). In this case,
the unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction would be assessed a $0.49 per contract fee for Penny Classes or
a $0.94 per contract fee for Non-Penny Classes as described in Options
7, Section 2(5).
    Likewise, today, when a PRISM Order is a Lead Market Maker, BX
Options Market Maker or Non-Customer order and executes against
unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction, the Lead Market Maker, BX Options Market Maker or Non-Customer
order will pay no fee, which represents the proposed pricing within
Options 7, Section 2(5). In this case, the unrelated market or
marketable interest received during a PRISM Auction would be assessed a
$0.49 per contract fee for Penny Classes or a $0.94 per contract fee
for Non-Penny Classes as described in Options 7, Section 2(5).
    In contrast, today, when a PRISM Order is a Customer, Lead Market
Maker, BX Options Market Maker or Non-Customer order and executes
against unrelated market or marketable interest received prior to a
PRISM Auction, the Customer, Lead Market Maker, BX Options Market Maker
or Non-Customer order would be subject to the Taker Fee within Options
7, Section 2(1).\9\ The unrelated market or marketable interest
received prior to a PRISM Auction commenced would be paid the Maker
Rebate within Options 7, Section 2(1).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BX assesses the following Penny Symbol Taker Fees: $0.50 per
contract for a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Non-Customer, and
Firm and $0.46 per contract for a Customer. BX assesses the
following Non-Penny Symbol Taker Fees: $1.10 per contract for a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Non-Customer, and Firm and $0.79 per
contract for a Customer.
    \10\ BX pays the following Penny Symbol Maker Rebates: $0.29 per
contract for a Lead Market Maker, $0.25 per contract for a Market
Maker (except that the Maker Rebate for Lead Market Makers and
Market Makers will be $0.22 per contract in SPY and $0.42 per
contract in AAPL and QQQ), $0.12 per contract for a Non-Customer and
Firm, and $0.30 per contract for a Customer. BX pays the following
Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebates: $0.45 per contract for a Lead Market
Maker, $0.40 per contract for a Market Maker, $0.45 per contract for
a Non-Customer and Firm, and $0.90 per contract for a Customer
(except that Customer orders will receive a $0.45 per contract Non-
Penny Symbol Maker Rebate if the quantity of transactions where the
contra-side is also a Customer is greater than 50% of Participant's
total Customer Non-Penny Symbol volume which adds liquidity in that
month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interest resting on the Exchange's order book, whether received
prior to the commencement of a PRISM auction or during a PRISM auction,
would be allocated in accordance within the PRISM Auction in accordance
with BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(E) and (F).
    The Exchange applies the order book pricing within Options 7,
Section 2(1) to interest received prior to the PRISM Auction, which is
considered unrelated market or marketable interest for purposes of the
PRISM Auction, because the Exchange's order book pricing within Options
7, Section 2(1) seeks to pay rebates to Participants posting liquidity
to the order book (makers of liquidity) and assess fees to Participants
removing liquidity from the order book (takers of liquidity). Interest
which rested on the order book prior to the commencement of a PRISM
Auction will be paid a Maker Rebate because the BX Participant who
submitted the interest, similar to other market participants who posted
liquidity on the order book, would be considered a maker of liquidity.
The BX Participant would have been aware \11\ that no PRISM Auction was
in progress at the time the interest was posted to the order book. The
Exchange notes that at the time the interest was submitted to the order
book, the BX Participant would have known \12\ that there was no
ongoing PRISM Auction and would not expect to be subject to the PRISM

pricing. The Exchange seeks to reward BX Participants who provide
liquidity to the order book by paying rebates. The Exchange's proposal
to pay Maker Rebates to unrelated market or marketable interest that
posted to the order book prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction
aligns with the Exchange's goals of attracting liquidity to the order
book and uniformly pays similarly situated BX Participants a Maker
Rebate. Further, in this scenario the PRISM Order that executes against
the unrelated market or marketable interest that posted to the order
book prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction would be subject to
the Taker Fee pricing within Options 7, Section 2(1) because the PRISM
Order removed liquidity from the order book. This is consistent with
the pricing assessed to any other Participant that removed liquidity
from BX's order book as they would be similarly assessed the Taker Fee
pricing within Options 7, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ BX Participants become aware of ongoing PRISM Auctions as
BX disseminates a PRISM Auction Notification or ``PAN'' when the
Exchange receives a PRISM Order for Auction processing. The PAN
details the price, side, size, and options series of the PRISM Order
over the BX Depth Feed and the Exchange's Specialized Quote Feed.
See BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(2).
    \12\ See note 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the Exchange applies PRISM pricing within Options 7,
Section 2(5) to the unrelated market or marketable interest when
interest arrived during a PRISM Auction. The Exchange seeks to
incentivize Participants to submit PRISM Auction Orders to receive a
guaranteed execution, potential price improvement, and Customer
rebates. BX Participants submitting interest to the order book during a
PRISM Auction are aware \13\ that they may be allocated in the PRISM
Auction. The Exchange assesses the PRISM pricing in Options 7, Section
2(5) in the same manner that responders to the PRISM Auction are
assessed fees for their PAN responses. The unrelated market or
marketable interest that received an allocation within the PRISM
Auction would be uniformly subject to the same fees as those BX
Participants who submitted PAN responses and were allocated, thereby
receiving a guaranteed execution and potential price improvement. The
Exchange's PRISM pricing assesses fees to PRISM PAN responses and
unrelated market or marketable interest that allocated in the PRISM
Auction and rewards those BX Participants with a guaranteed execution
and potential price improvement. The response fees assessed by the
Exchange are intended to fund the Customer rebates paid by the Exchange
which seek to incentivize increased Customer order flow to the PRISM
Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's pricing models for the order book and PRISM Auction
each seek to attract liquidity to BX and reward Participants
differently for the order flow. To this end, the Exchange's pricing
considers the manner in which orders interact with the PRISM Auction
based on the timing of when the order entered the order book. The
Exchange's pricing is consistent with its current practice of assigning
the applicable pricing for auctions versus order book pricing depending
on how and when the order was submitted to the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options transaction
services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The
fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \16\
(``NetCoalition''), the D.C. Circuit stated, ``[n]o one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained,
`[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is only one of sixteen
options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order
flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and increase
its market share relative to its competitors.
PRISM Orders
    The Exchange's proposal to amend PRISM Order fees so that no market
participant pays a PRISM Order fee is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange proposes to assess no market
participant a PRISM Order fee. Customers, Lead Market Makers, BX
Options Market Makers and Non-Customers would uniformly pay no PRISM
Order fees.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the current language in the
Pricing Schedule which states, ``BX will apply the rebate to market
participants that submitted a PRISM Order pursuant to a PRISM Auction
and the PRISM Order traded with PRISM Response. The PRISM Order fee for
Submitted PRISM Order will be applicable to any contract(s) for which a
rebate is provided for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response'' is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the language
is not necessary specifically in light of the Exchange's proposal to
assess no market participant a PRISM Order fee.
Unrelated Market or Marketable Interest
    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction is reasonable because the Exchange's
order book pricing within Options 7, Section 2(1) seeks to pay rebates
to Participants posting liquidity to the order book (makers of
liquidity) and assesses fees to Participants removing liquidity from
the order book (takers of liquidity). Interest which rested on the
order book prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction will be paid a
Maker Rebate because the BX Participant who submitted the interest,
similar to other market participants who posted liquidity on the order
book, would be considered a maker of liquidity. The BX Participant
would have been aware that no PRISM Auction was in progress at the time
the interest was posted to the order book.\18\ The Exchange notes that
at the time the interest was submitted to the order book, the BX
Participant would have

known \19\ that there was no ongoing PRISM Auction and would not expect
to be subject to the PRISM pricing. The Exchange seeks to reward BX
Participants who provide liquidity to the order book by paying rebates.
The Exchange's proposal to pay Maker Rebates to unrelated market or
marketable interest that posted to the order book prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction aligns with the Exchange's goals of
attracting liquidity to the order book and uniformly pays similarly
situated BX Participants a Maker Rebate. Further, in this scenario the
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess the PRISM Order that
executes against the unrelated market or marketable interest that
posted to the order book prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction
the Taker Fee pricing within Options 7, Section 2(1) because the PRISM
Order removed liquidity from the order book. This is consistent with
the pricing assessed to any other Participant that removed liquidity
from BX's order book as they would be uniformly assessed the Taker Fee
pricing within Options 7, Section 2(1). The Taker Fee pricing within
Options 7, Section 2(1) funds the Maker Rebates within Options 7,
Section 2(1). BX pays Maker Rebates to attract order flow to BX and all
Participants may interact with this order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See note 5 above.
    \19\ BX Participants become aware of ongoing PRISM Auctions as
BX disseminates a PRISM Auction Notification or ``PAN'' when the
Exchange receives a PRISM Order for Auction processing. The PAN
details the price, side, size, and options series of the PRISM Order
over the BX Depth Feed and the Exchange's Specialized Quote Feed.
See BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all BX Participants who submitted unrelated
market or marketable interest which rested on the order book prior to
the commencement of a PRISM Auction will be uniformly paid a Maker
Rebate. The Exchange's proposal would treat BX Participants who
submitted unrelated market or marketable interest which rested on the
order book prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction in the same
manner as other BX Participants who posted liquidity on the order book
as they would both be considered makers of liquidity. Further, all
Participants who submitted a PRISM Order that executed against the
unrelated market or marketable interest that posted to the order book
prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction would be uniformly
assessed a Taker Fee. The Exchange's proposal would treat BX
Participants who submitted PRISM Order that executed against the
unrelated market or marketable interest that posted to the order book
prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction in the same manner as
other BX Participants who removed liquidity from the order book as they
would both be considered takers of liquidity.
    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction is reasonable because the Exchange seeks to incentivize
Participants to submit PRISM Auction Orders to receive a guaranteed
execution, potential price improvement, and Customer rebates. BX
Participants submitting interest to the order book during a PRISM
Auction are aware \20\ that they may be allocated in the PRISM Auction.
The Exchange assesses the PRISM pricing in Options 7, Section 2(5) in
the same manner that responders to the PRISM Auction are assessed fees
for their PAN responses. The unrelated market or marketable interest
that received an allocation within the PRISM Auction would be uniformly
subject to the same fees as those BX Participants who submitted PAN
responses and were allocated, thereby receiving a guaranteed execution
and potential price improvement. The Exchange's PRISM pricing assesses
fees to PRISM PAN responses and unrelated market or marketable interest
that allocated in the PRISM Auction and rewards those BX Participants
with a guaranteed execution and potential price improvement. The
response fees assessed by the Exchange are intended to fund the
Customer rebates paid by the Exchange which seek to incentivize
increased Customer order flow to the PRISM Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See note 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all BX
Participants who submitted unrelated market or marketable interest
which rested on the order book during a PRISM Auction would uniformly
be assessed the same fees. The Exchange's proposal would treat BX
Participants who submitted unrelated market or marketable interest
which rested on the order book during a PRISM Auction in the same
manner as other BX Participants who submitted PAN responses into the
PRISM Auction and were provided with a guaranteed execution and
potential price improvement. Further, paying a rebate of $0.35 per
contract for Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for Non-Penny Classes
only to Customer PRISM Orders that executes against unrelated market or
marketable interest received during a PRISM Auction is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Customer liquidity is the most
sought after liquidity among Participants. Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. 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.

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.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice to initiate a price improvement auction. 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. 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.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction does not impose an undue burden on
competition because all BX Participants who submitted unrelated market
or marketable interest which rested on the order book prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction will be uniformly paid a Maker Rebate.

The Exchange's proposal would treat BX Participants who submitted
unrelated market or marketable interest which rested on the order book
prior to the commencement of a PRISM Auction in the same manner as
other BX Participants who posted liquidity on the order book as they
would both be considered makers of liquidity. Further, all Participants
who submitted a PRISM Order that executed against the unrelated market
or marketable interest that posted to the order book prior to the
commencement of a PRISM Auction would be uniformly assessed a Taker
Fee. The Exchange's proposal would treat BX Participants who submitted
PRISM Order that executed against the unrelated market or marketable
interest that posted to the order book prior to the commencement of a
PRISM Auction in the same manner as other BX Participants who removed
liquidity from the order book as they would both be considered takers
of liquidity.
    The Exchange's proposal to state the manner in which the Exchange
prices unrelated market or marketable interest received during a PRISM
Auction does not impose an undue burden on competition because all BX
Participants who submitted unrelated market or marketable interest
which rested on the order book during a PRISM Auction would uniformly
be assessed the same fees. The Exchange's proposal would treat BX
Participants who submitted unrelated market or marketable interest
which rested on the order book during a PRISM Auction in the same
manner as other BX Participants who submitted PAN responses into the
PRISM Auction and were provided with a guaranteed execution and
potential price improvement. Further, paying a rebate of $0.35 per
contract for Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for Non-Penny Classes
only to Customer PRISM Orders that executes against unrelated market or
marketable interest received during a PRISM Auction does not impose an
undue burden on competition because Customer liquidity is the most
sought after liquidity among Participants. Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. 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.

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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2023-006 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-BX-2023-006. 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-BX-2023-006 and should be submitted on
or before April 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05336 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47153]
[DOCID:fr13au08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-455-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

August 7, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2008, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CenterPoint), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston,
Texas, filed in Docket No. CP08-455-000 a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA), and CenterPoint's blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-384-000 on September 1, 1982,\1\ and amended in Docket No.
CP82-384-001 on February 10, 1983.\2\ CenterPoint seeks authorization
to install approximately one-half mile of 16-inch pipe, a rental
compressor station, and a meter station in Red River Parish, Louisiana,
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, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ] 62,408 (1982).
    \2\ 22 FERC ] 61,148 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, CenterPoint proposes to install approximately 2,215
feet of 16-inch diameter steel pipe to interconnect its CP-5 line to
Texas Eastern Transmission, LLC's Sligo Lateral Line 11-G, a rental
1,680 horsepower Waukesha L7044GSI compressor station, and an 8-inch
ultrasonic meter station, at a cost of $10.018 million. CenterPoint has
filed this application under the Commission's prior notice procedures
even though the estimated cost is below the maximum allowed for an
automatic authorization cost limit of $10.2 million stated in section
157.208(d) \3\ of the Commission's regulations because of the recent
rapid increases in material and labor costs. The proposed project will
allow CenterPoint to access supplies from the Sligo Gas Processing
Plant \4\ which processes natural gas from the Sligo Field in northwest
Louisiana. It will also create additional supply sources for
CenterPoint's newly constructed pipeline from Carthage, TX, to the
Perryville Hub in Louisiana (Line CP). The additional supply sources
will allow CenterPoint to compete effectively in its geographic market
and to offer its customers more transportation alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 18 CFR 157.208(d) (2008).
    \4\ The Sligo Gas Processing Plant is owned by CenterPoint
Energy Field Services, a non-jurisdictional gathering affiliate of
CenterPoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Larry Thomas, Director, Rates & Regulatory, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, P. O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff 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 and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) 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 Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: October 6, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18734 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P