[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76022-76023]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1355-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits triennial
market power analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20121217-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-550-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: Order No. 719 Compliance Filing to be effective 12/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20121217-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-563-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Second Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 27--
Interconnection Agreement (Amps Line) to be effective 12/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20121217-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-564-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 178 with the City of Tallahassee,
Florida.
    Filed Date: 12/17/12.
    Accession Number: 20121217-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/13.

    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: December 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30920 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1182 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2002 / Notices do not need to file Initial Briefs in order to file Reply Briefs. 6. In authorizing the emergency transmission and delivery of electric capacity and energy, the Emergency Order limited the service provided by CSC for LIPA as follows:

[ T] his order * * * shall be limited to requiring the transmission and delivery of such electric capacity and/ or energy as is necessary in the judgment of the New York Independent System Operator to meet the supply and essential reserve margin needs of LIPA * * * and * * * prior to exercising its judgment as required by this order, the New York Independent System Operator must consult with ISO   New England, Inc. to ensure that the scheduling of such electric capacity and/ or energy will not violate system operating criteria * * * ( Emphasis added.)

7. The documents in the Referral indicate that `` the day that DOE issued the [ Emergency] Order, LIPA contacted the NYISO and remained in almost daily telephone and e mail communication with NYISO to determine what those emergency operating and scheduling protocols would be.'' The documents further indicate that the `` Implementation Protocol for Emergency Operation of the Cross Sound Cable'' ( Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation) was not made available to LIPA until NYISO sent a facsimile transmission to LIPA on September 23, 2002, one week before the Emergency Order expired. 8. To help the Commission understand the reasons for the delay in establishing the Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation as ordered by the Secretary, and to help the Commission ensure that such a delay does not occur again, NYISO and ISO   New England are hereby directed to answer the following questions on or before January 31, 2003: A. Explain in detail why NYISO and ISO New England did not establish the Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation within a week or less of the issuance of the Secretary's Emergency Order. B. Explain in detail the processes followed and the reasons why it took 38 days to issue the Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation. C. Explain whether the same processes would be used if the Secretary issued another emergency order. If not, what changes would be made? D. The fourth paragraph of the Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation states: All costs associated with energy provided pursuant to the [ Emergency] Order and this Protocol shall be governed by the Emergency Transactions Agreement entered into between the NYISO and the New England Power Pool on August 14, 2000. ( 1) Identify and support all costs associated with providing energy under the Emergency Order including expenses associated with establishing the Protocol for Emergency CSC Operation. ( 2) Provide a copy of the August 14 Emergency Transactions Agreement and the protocols used to support such agreement. E. Is there a scheduling and operating protocol which will be used if another emergency order is issued or when the CSC is fully operational? 9. Any comments parties have with respect to the answers provided by the ISOs may be included in separate sections of the Initial or Reply Briefs.

The Commission Orders ( A) Procedures for Commission action on the Referral are hereby established as discussed in the body of this order. ( B) The NYISO and ISO   NE are hereby directed to submit responses, as discussed in the body of this order.

By the Commission.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   365 Filed 1   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7437   2]

EPA Public Meeting   Closing the Gap: Innovative Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is hosting a one day public forum to discuss water and wastewater infrastructure in the United States. EPA's goal is to bring together stakeholders, including those from business, government, and academia, to exchange information and views on management and sustainable financing of the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure. The meeting will be in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2003, starting at 9 a. m. This meeting is open to the public. The forum will be composed primarily of two moderated expert panels who will offer their insights. At the forum, the audience will have an opportunity to provide questions to be discussed by the experts. DATES: The meeting will begin at 9 a. m. on January 31, 2003. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the ballroom at the Marriott at Metro Center at 775 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on the location and agenda of this meeting, and general background information including related documents and reports on water and wastewater infrastructure needs, please see the Office of Water Web Page at http:// www. epa. gov/ ow/ or contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, phone: ( 800) 426   4791 or ( 703) 285   1093. To assist in making arrangements for the number of attendees, please send an email to closingthegap@ cadmusgroup. com with the name, title, and organization of each person attending. Seating is limited to 300 people. If you need special accommodations at this meeting, including signing, you should contact Shawna Bergman at ( 202) 564   3641 by January 24, 2003, so that we can make appropriate arrangements.

Dated: January 3, 2003. G. Tracy Mehan, III, Assistant Administrator for Water. [ FR Doc. 03   392 Filed 1   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0340; FRL   7287   7]

Folpet; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0340, must be received on or before February 10, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Giles Parker, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 13 Jan 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JAN1. SGM 09JAN1 1183 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2002 / Notices Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   7740; e mail address: giles parker. cynthia@ epa. gov.

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. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0340. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0340. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 13 Jan 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JAN1. SGM 09JAN1 1184 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2002 / Notices other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0340. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0340. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0340. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 2, 2003. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc.

2E6512 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( 2E6512) from Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc. ( MANA), 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1100 New York, NY 10176 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of folpet N [( trichloromethyl)] thiophthalimide in or on the raw agricultural commodity hop at 120 parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue of folpet in plants is adequately understood based on acceptable avocado, grape and wheat metabolism studies. The metabolism of folpet in livestock is adequately understood. Based on the results observed in the metabolism studies, secondary residues such as phthalimide and phthalic acid are not expected to be of toxicological concern. The residue of concern is folpet per se. 2. Analytical method. An adequate gas chromatography/ electron capture detector ( GC/ ECD) analytical method is available for enforcing tolerances of folpet in or on plant commodities. The method of detection had a limit of detection ( LOD) of 0.01 mg/ kg ( ppm) and a limit of quantitation ( LOQ) of 0.02 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) ( ppm) in dried hops.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 13 Jan 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JAN1. SGM 09JAN1 1185 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2002 / Notices 3. Magnitude of residues. Five residue trials have been conducted in Bavaria, Germany during 1996 and 1997. The hops were treated up to 8 times per season at a rate of up to 4.3 kg active ingredients/ hectare ( a. i./ ha) ( up to 23 kg a. i./ ha per season), considering a 14 day PHI. After kiln drying, the measured residues in hops ranged from 25 to 65 ppm. Folpet was not detectable in any of the processed hop commodities ( LOD for spent hops = 0.01 ppm; beer = 0.003 ppm). The generated data support the requested tolerance.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. In studies using laboratory animals, in general folpet has been shown to be of low acute toxicity: The acute oral LD50 and the acute dermal LD50 in rats were greater than 5,000 mg/ kg. The acute rat inhalation LC50 ( 4 hour) was 0.48 mg/ l. Folpet was irritating to the eyes of rabbits. It was not irritating to rabbit skin in a standard dermal irritation study but was a dermal sensitizer in a guinea pig maximization study. Based on these results, folpet is expected to be classified as TOXICITY CATEGORY IV for acute oral and dermal toxicity, and skin irritation, and as TOXICITY CATEGORY II for acute inhalation toxicity, and eye irritation. 2. Genotoxicty. Folpet was tested for genotoxic effects in several standard tests. Folpet is neither mutagenic nor genotoxic in mammals. In some of the in vitro studies mutagenic events were observed, such as gene mutations/ DNA damage in bacteria and mammalian cells, chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells and mitotic recombination in yeast. However, folpet does not present a genotoxic risk based on the fact that folpet degrades with a half life of 0.97 seconds in vivo. This fast detoxification effectively eliminates systemic exposure to folpet or thiophosgene. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In an oral developmental study with New Zealand rabbits, the maternal and developmental no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) was 10 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased food consumption, increased number of fetuses and litters with hydrocephalus and associated skull malformations at the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 20 mg/ kg/ day. In the rat developmental study the developmental no observed effect level ( NOEL) was 60 mg/ kg and the lowest observed effect level ( LOEL) was 360 mg/ kg. A two generation reproductive study in rats produced a parental NOEL of 34.5 mg/ kg/ day. There was a marginal decrease in the body weight of the F1 offspring at birth and during lactation but no other changes in physical, functional, or behavioral endpoints were observed. The NOEL in the F2 of 40 mg/ kg/ day was based on decreased body weight gain and decreased fertility of the males. The LOEL in this study was 180 mg/ kg. For both developmental and reproductive bioassays, the effects elicited by folpet are considered secondary to its primary effect: irritancy of the gastrointestinal tract. Folpet is absent in the systemic circulation and its initial ring degradate, phthalimide, has been shown not to be a developmental toxin. 4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 90 day feeding study in rats, the NOEL was established at 3,000 ppm and the LOEL was 10,000 ppm. Noted effects were decreased brain weight and decreased total blood protein including albumin. In a subchronic dermal toxicity study, folpet was applied to rats at dose levels of 0, 1, 10, and 30 mg/ kg body weight for 6 hours per day, 5 days a week, for a total of 21 days over a period of 30 days. All folpet treated rats developed pronounced dermal irritation in a doserelated manner. Systemic toxicity based on decreased body weight gain was observed at 10 and 30 mg/ kg dose levels, but without clearly separating this effect to the severe skin damage. 5. Chronic toxicity. A 2 year feeding chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats was conducted with folpet at dietary concentrations of 0, 200, 800, or 3,200 ppm. For chronic toxicity, the NOAEL was 200 ppm ( 9 mg/ kg/ day) and the LOAEL was 800 ppm ( 35 mg/ kg) based on hyperkeratosis/ acanthosis and ulceration/ erosion of the non glandular stomach in males and females. No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in this study. A 2 year feeding chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in CD 1 mice showed a statistically significant, doserelated increase in the incidence of duodenal adenocarcinomas with an increase of about 50% at the highest dose tested ( 1,429 mg/ kg/ day). A similar response was seen in a chronic feeding study with B6C3F1 mice at the highest dose tested ( HDT) of 1,000 mg/ kg. In previous assessments, the Agency has concluded that folpet is a Group B2 carcinogen, based on the increased incidences of duodenal adenomas and carcinomas in males and females of two strains of mice. 6. Animal metabolism. Results from the livestock and rat metabolism studies showed that orally administered folpet was rapidly absorbed, hydrolized and metabolized, followed by rapid elimination, predominantly via the urine. The major fecal degradate was phthalamic acid, while phthalic acid was a minor degradate. Most of the applied dose was excreted within 24 hours. 7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no folpet metabolites identified in plant or animal commodities, which require regulation. 8. Endocrine disruption. The standard battery of required toxicity studies has been completed. These studies include an evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long term exposure. There is no evidence which suggests that folpet is an endocrine disrupter. The existing studies are generally considered to be sufficient to detect any endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Potential dietary exposures from food under the existing tolerances for domestic uses ( avocados) and imported commodities ( apples, cranberries, cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, melons, onions, strawberries, and tomatoes), were estimated using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM) for acute and chronic exposure based on the U. S. Department of Agriculture's ( USDA) 1989   1992 individual consumption data. Residue data were based on field trials and percent crop information along with processing factors from submitted studies. No data from USDA's Pesticide Data Program ( PDP) were available for folpet. i. Food. Acute dietary exposure was compared to the acute population adjusted dose ( aPAD), which utilizes 25.3% for females ( 15   50 years) at the 99th percentile, the only population group of concern for the acute Reference Dose ( aRfD = 0.03 mg/ kg/ day, using the NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg from the rabbit study, and the FQPA safety factor of 3X). The results of the chronic ( noncancer dietary analysis indicate that the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) was below 1% for the U. S. population and its most sensitive subgroups based on a cRfD of 0.09 mg/ kg/ day. Concerning the dietary cancer risk, the Agency's calculated upper bound risk was 9.8 x 10 8, based on a Q* of 0.00186 mg/ kg/ day 1, using field trial data, processing factors and percent crop treated information. This risk level is far less than EPA's level of concern of 1 x 10 6. Based on USDA's consumption data not more than 0.0022% of the U. S. population diet is constituted of hops VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 13 Jan 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JAN1. SGM 09JAN1 1186 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2002 / Notices ( Federal Register of June 1, 2000, Vol. 65, No 106, p. 35069   35090, Table 10; Guidance on Pesticide Import Tolerances and Residue Data for Imported Food). Furthermore, USDA's import statistics show that not more than 38% of beer consumed in the USA is imported and/ or contains imported hops, which translates into a diet contribution from imported hops of not more than 0.0007%. For the purposes of this risk assessment, it was also demonstrated in brewing studies using hops treated with folpet at maximum label rates ( range of residues: 25 to 65 ppm) and exaggerated hopping rates ( 0.002% or up to 2 g per liter wort) that no folpet residues could be measured in the finished beer ( LOD = 0.003 ppm). Hopping rates in beer production are usually less than 0.001% in brew water ( wort). Even considering that trace amounts of folpet would enter the brewing process, it will be rapidly hydrolyzed and completely degraded by the end of the beer brewing. In view of this information and assumptions, the resulting dietary risk contribution via imported hops is negligible, even if 100% of the imported hops would be treated with folpet at maximum label rates. ii. Drinking water. The potential for folpet to leach into groundwater or contaminate surface water is very limited considering that folpet is currently only registered for the use on avocados in two counties in Florida. Based on the available information, the predicted residues in drinking water do not indicate an unacceptable contribution to acute or chronic dietary exposure at this time. Since the proposed petition does not add any new uses or exposures to it, contribution of any folpet residues in drinking water to the total dietary intake is negligible. 2. Non dietary exposure. Not applicable.

D. Cumulative Effects There is a common mechanism of toxicity that folpet shares with captan with regard to its carcinogenicity in the mouse. Folpet and captan share the common metabolite, thiophosgene, which contributes to the irritancy of the duodenum in mice along with the parent compounds, leading ( at dose levels above the established threshold and for administration with sufficient time) to adenomas. Thiophosgene reacts not only with thiol groups, as does folpet and captan, but also with a variety of other functional groups. This instability results in its rapid loss. The cumulative effect of captan and folpet oral exposure is of theoretical interest only, as the threshold for irritancy in the mouse duodenum is above 60 mg/ kg/ day ( captan) or 50 mg/ kg/ day ( folpet). If the mouse test system reflected human susceptibility, a 70 kg individual would need to consume more than 3.5 grams folpet plus captan in order to approach the NOEL of 50 mg/ kg/ day. Given the expected residue levels of folpet and those of captan, this is not possible.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the exposure assumptions described above, MANA concludes that the total dietary exposure to folpet is acceptable. According to import information statistics from the USDA and under the conservative ( worst case) dietary exposure assumption described above, not more than 0.0022% of the U. S. population diet is constituted of hops, which means not more than 0.0007% can potentially be contributed to imported hops. Based on these insignificant dietary contributions, MANA considers the potential folpet residue contribution negligible, concluding that the most sensitive population group of concern are still females ( 15   50 years) with an aPAD of 25% and a cPAD of < 1%. There is generally no concern for exposures below 100% of the PAD since it represents the level at or below which no appreciable risks to human health is posed. The upper bound calculated dietary cancer risk was 9.8 x 10 8, based on a Q* of 0.00186 mg/ kg/ day 1, which is far less than EPA's level of concern of 1 x 10 6. Thus, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U. S. population in general or to any of its subgroups of concern from aggregate exposure to folpet residues in or on imported hops. 2. Infants and children. Data from rat and rabbit development toxicity studies and rat multigeneration reproduction studies are generally used to assess the potential for increased sensitivity of infants and children. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development. Reproduction studies provide information relating to reproductive and other effects on adults and offspring from pre natal and postnatal exposure to the pesticide. FFDCA Section 408 provides that the Agency may apply an additional safety factor for infants and children to account for pre and post natal toxicity or incompleteness of the database. However, the toxicology database for folpet regarding potential pre and postnatal effects in offspring is complete according to existing Agency data requirements and does not indicate any particular developmental or reproductive concerns. EPA assigned an FQPA safety factor of 3x in the 1999 Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED). This was based on the apparent hydrocephaly seen in New Zealand rabbits. Subsequently, additional data were provided to the Agency that showed folpet does not induce hydrocephaly. The Agency agreed with the assessment contained in the submitted document and rescinded its request for a new rabbit study. The Agency has not, as of yet, removed the FQPA 3x safety factor. A FQPA safety factor of 1x would be also consistent with that of captan. The appropriate acute Reference Dose ( aRfD) for folpet, calculated with a FQPA safety factor of 1x, would be 0.01 mg/ kg/ day. This aRfD should be used in future assessments concerning the potential risks to infants and children. However, for the purpose of this assessment, MANA used the existing aRfD of 0.03 mg/ kg/ day, as it was done in the 1999 RED. MANA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the anticipated dietary exposure to residues of folpet and considering that the proposed import tolerance does not affect foods and beverages legally consumed by children and infants.

F. International Tolerances Germany has established an MRL ( maximum residue limit) of 120 ppm for residues of folpet in dried hops. No CODEX MRL for hops exists. [ FR Doc. 03   389 Filed 1   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7437   1]

Proposed CERCLA Section 122( h)( 1) Administrative Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs for the City Chemical Corporation Site, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122( i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (`` CERCLA''), 42 U. S. C. 9622( i), notice is hereby given by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA''), Region II, of a VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 13 Jan 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JAN1. SGM 09JAN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22656]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3376-003; ER11-3377-003; ER11-3378-003.
    Applicants: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC, Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC,
South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to December 22, 2016 Triennial Report for
Northwest Region of North Hurlburt Wind, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 5/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170511-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1582-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-Highlands RS No. 337
Revised PPA to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170510-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/17.

    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: May 11, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09945 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20961-20967]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69268; File No. SR-C2-2013-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to Amend the Fees Schedule

April 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 26, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. \3\ 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.
    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange initially filed this
proposed rule change as SR-C2-2013-015 on March 18, 2013, withdrew
that filing on March 26, 2013, and re-filed the proposed rule change
as SR-C2-2013-017 on March 26, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange intends to commence the listing and trading of option
contracts overlying 10 shares of a security (``Mini-options,'' or
``Minis'').\4\ Because the regular per-contract unit of trading for the
five options classes (SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN) on which the
Exchange has proposed listing Minis is 100 shares, a Mini effectively
functions as 1/10 of a regular options contract (generally speaking).
The Exchange hereby proposes to adopt fees for the trading of Minis
(all fees referenced herein are per-contract unless otherwise stated).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68656 (January 15,
2013), 78 FR 4526 (January 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-001), in which
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') proposed to list
Mini Options on SPDR S&P 500 (``SPY''), Apple, Inc. (``AAPL''), SPDR
Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG'') and Amazon.com Inc.
(``AMZN'') (together, the ``Mini Classes''). SPY and GLD are
Exchange-Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and AAPL, AMZN and GOOG are equity
options. Chapter 5 to the C2 Rulebook provides that the rules
contained in CBOE Chapter V, as such rules may be in effect from
time to time, shall apply to C2 and that C2 participants shall
comply with CBOE Rule Chapter 5 as if such rules were part of the C2
Rules. Accordingly, when CBOE amended Rule 5.5 to provide for the
trading of mini-options, that filing resulted in a simultaneous
change to identical C2 rules. SR-C2-2013-014 expounds on the listing
and trading of Minis on C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minis have a smaller exercise and assignment value due to the
reduced number of shares they deliver as compared to standard option
contracts. As such, the Exchange is proposing generally lower per
contract fees as compared to standard option contracts, with some
exceptions to be fully described below. Despite the smaller exercise
and assignment value of a Mini, the cost to the Exchange to process
quotes and orders in Minis, perform regulatory surveillance and retain
quotes and orders for archival purposes

is the same as a for a standard contract. This leaves the Exchange in a
position of trying to strike the right balance of fees applicable to
Minis--too low and the costs of processing Mini quotes and orders will
necessarily cause the Exchange to either raise fees for everyone or
only for participants trading Minis; too high and participants may be
deterred from trading Minis, leaving the Exchange less able to recoup
costs associated with development of the product, which is designed to
offer investors a way to take less risk in high dollar securities. The
Exchange, therefore, believes that adopting fees for Minis that are in
some cases lower than fees for standard contracts, and in other cases
the same as for standard contracts, is appropriate, not unreasonable,
not unfairly discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between
participants, or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed
options marketplace.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a set of fees for simple, non-
complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes. The Exchange proposes a Public Customer Mini Maker rebate of
$0.04, which is slightly more than 1/10th the $0.37 rebate for
standard-sized Public Customer simple, non-complex Maker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes. The Exchange does not
wish to apply sub-penny transaction fees for multiply-listed index and
ETF mini options, and the slight increase over 1/10th the rebate for
standard-sized Public Customer simple, non-complex Maker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes is intended to
incentivize Public Customers to send simple, non-complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes to the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes a Public Customer Mini Taker fee of $0.04, which is
slightly less than 1/10th the $0.44 fee for standard-sized Public
Customer simple, non-complex Taker orders in all multiply-listed index
and ETF options classes. The slight decrease below 1/10th the fee for
standard-sized Public Customer simple, non-complex Taker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes is intended to
incentivize Public Customers to send simple, non-complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a C2 Market-Maker Maker rebate of
$0.04 for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and
ETF mini-options classes, which is 1/10th the amount of the rebate for
standard-sized C2 Market-Maker simple, non-complex Maker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes. The Exchange proposes a
C2 Market-Maker Mini Taker fee of $0.05 for simple, non-complex orders
in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes, which is
slightly more than 1/10th the $0.45 fee for standard-sized C2 Market-
Maker simple, non-complex Taker orders in all multiply-listed index and
ETF options classes. As noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to
process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard
options, and therefore, in some situations, the Exchange must assess a
Minis fee of more than 1/10th the amount assessed for standard options
transactions.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a Maker rebate of $0.03 for simple,
non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes from all other origins (Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/
Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.), which is slightly less than 1/
10th the amount of the rebate for standard-sized simple, non-complex
Maker orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options classes from
all other origins. As noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to
process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as for standard
options, and therefore, in some situations, the Exchange cannot provide
a Minis rebate of equal to or greater than 1/10th the amount provided
for standard options transactions. The Exchange proposes a Taker fee of
$0.04 for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and
ETF mini-options classes from all other origins, which is slightly less
than 1/10th the $0.45 fee for standard-sized simple, non-complex Taker
orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options classes from all
other origins. The Exchange offers this slightly-lower-than-1/10th fee
in order to prevent the Exchange from having a difference of more than
$0.01 between the rebate offered and fee assessed for simple, non-
complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes from all other origins.
    On February 1, 2013, the Exchange instituted a new fee structure
for simple, non-complex orders in equity options classes that is based
on the following formula: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68792 (January 31,
2013), 78 FR 8621 (February 6, 2013) (SR-C2-2013-004). For details
on this new structure, see C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fee = (C2 BBO Market Width at time of execution) x (Market
Participant Rate) x 50.
    This new structure has a maximum fee of $0.85 per contract. Because
a Mini effectively functions as 1/10th of a standard options contract,
the Exchange proposes to state that, for mini-options, the multiplier
in the above formula will be 5 instead of 50, and the maximum fee will
be $0.085.
    In conjunction with this new fee structure, the Exchange also
instituted a Public Customer Taker rebate for simple, non-complex
orders in equity options classes that is based on the following
formula: Rebate = (C2 BBO Market Width at time of execution) x (Order
Size Multiplier) x 50
    This new structure has a maximum rebate of $0.75 per contract.
Because a Mini effectively functions as 1/10th of a standard options
contract, the Exchange proposes to state that, for mini-options, the
multiplier in the above formula will be 5 instead of 50, and the
maximum rebate will be $0.075.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a set of fees for complex orders in
all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes. The Exchange
proposes a Public Customer rebate (for both Makers and Takers) for such
orders of $0.03, which is slightly less than 1/10th the amount of the
rebate for standard-sized complex Public Customer orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes. As noted earlier, the
cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is
the same as for standard options, and therefore, in some situations,
the Exchange cannot provide a Minis rebate of equal to or greater than
1/10th the amount provided for standard options transactions. As with
standard-sized complex Public Customer orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF options classes, no Maker or Taker fee or rebate will
apply to Public Customer Mini orders that trade with other Public
Customer Mini orders.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a Maker fee of $0.01 for C2 Market-
Maker complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes and of $0.02 for complex orders in all multiply-listed index
and ETF mini-options classes from all other origins (except Public
Customers, who will be provided the rebate described above). These
amounts are exactly 1/10th the amounts of their respective
corresponding fees for standard-sized complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF options classes. The Exchange proposes to adopt a
Taker fee of $0.03 for complex orders in all multiply-listed index and
ETF mini-options classes from C2 Market-Makers and all other origins
(except Public Customers, who will be provided the

rebate described above). This amount is slightly less than 1/10rh [sic]
the corresponding fees for standard-sized complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes, but is being utilized in
order to maintain whole-penny fee rates and encourage trading of
complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes.
    As with orders (both simple and complex) in all standard-sized
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes, the Exchange proposes to
assess no fee (and provide no rebate) for orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF mini-options classes that are Trades on the Open.
    The Exchange proposes to not establish a separate set of Mini fees
for complex order transactions in equity options. Instead, Minis will
be encompassed within the current statement on the Exchange's Fees
Schedule that for all complex order transactions in equity options
classes, all components of such transactions (including simple, non-
complex orders and/or quotes that execute against a complex order) will
be assessed no fee (or rebate).
    In order to comply with the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan''), the Exchange uses various
means of accessing better priced interest located on other exchanges
and assesses fees associated with the execution of orders routed to
other exchanges.\6\ For Public Customers, these fees involve, in some
circumstances, the passing-through of the actual transaction fee
assessed by the exchange(s) to which the order was routed, while in
others, and for non-Customers, a set amount is assessed. These fees are
designed to help recover the Exchange's costs in routing orders to
other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') and broker-dealers will be assessing the same
charges for Minis as are assessed to standard options. Further, the
Exchange's costs for routing Minis through to other exchanges will be
the same as the Exchange's costs for routing standard options to other
exchanges. As such, the Exchange intends apply to Mini options the same
Linkage Fees structure as applies to standard options. The Exchange
notes that participants can avoid the Linkage Fees in several ways.
First, they can simply route to the exchange with the best priced
interest. The Exchange, in recognition of the fact that markets can
move while orders are in flight, also offers participants the ability
to utilize order types that do not route to other exchanges.
Specifically, the Immediate-or-Cancel Order (``IOC Order'') is one such
order that would never route to another exchange. For all these
reasons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply to Mini
options the same Linkage Fees structure as applies to standard options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.002 per contract Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\7\ The Exchange is proposing to charge the
same rate for transactions in Mini options, $0.002 per contract, since,
as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process quotes, orders, trades
and the necessary regulatory surveillance programs and procedures in
Minis are the same as for standard option contracts. As such, the
Exchange feels that it is appropriate to charge the ORF at the same
rate as the standard option contract. The Exchange also assesses a Firm
Designated Examining Authority Fee (the ``DEA Fee'') of $0.40 per
$1,000 of gross revenue.\8\ Any revenue that comes from Mini trading
would count towards the DEA Fee (as does other revenue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 8E.
    \8\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 8A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, because, as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process
quotes, orders, trades and the necessary regulatory surveillance
programs and procedures in Minis are the same as for standard option
contracts, the Exchange will assess to Mini transactions the same PULSe
Workstation Away-Market Routing, Away-Market Routing Intermediary, and
C2 Routing fees (the ``PULSe Workstation Fees'') \9\ as are assessed to
standard options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 11A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange amended its Fees Schedule to institute a new fee
structure for simple, non-complex orders in equity options classes,\10\
this new fee structure was placed in Section 1B of the Fees Schedule,
and the fees that had previously been listed in Section 1B became
listed in Section 1C. However, the Exchange unintentionally failed to
update some of the references in Section 1C to reflect that re-
numbering. As such, two places in Section 1C reference ``this Section
1B'' even though that is now Section 1C. The Exchange hereby proposes
to amend those references so that they accurately refer to ``this
Section 1C''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68792 (January 31,
2013), 78 FR 8621 (February 6, 2013) (SR-C2-2013-004). For details
on this new structure, see C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\11\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a Public Customer
Maker rebate of $0.04 for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF mini-options classes is reasonable because this
provides Public Customer Makers with a rebate for such transactions
(instead of having to pay a fee). The Exchange believes this rebate is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is slightly more
than 1/10th the $0.37 rebate for standard-sized Public Customer simple,
non-complex Maker orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options
classes. The Exchange does not wish to apply sub-penny transaction fees
for multiply-listed index and ETF mini options, and the slight increase
over 1/10th the rebate for standard-sized Public Customer simple, non-
complex Maker orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options
classes is intended to incentivize Public Customers to send simple,
non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that its proposal to
assess a Public Customer Mini Taker fee of $0.04 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is slightly less
than 1/10th the $0.44 fee for standard-sized Public Customer simple,
non-complex Taker orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options
classes. The slight decrease below 1/10th the fee for standard-sized
Public Customer simple, non-complex Taker orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF options classes is intended to incentivize Public
Customers to send simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF mini-options classes to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a C2 Market-Maker
Maker rebate of $0.04 for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF mini-options classes is

reasonable because it is 1/10th the amount of the rebate for standard-
sized C2 Market-Maker simple, non-complex Maker orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF options classes. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to adopt a C2 Market-Maker Mini Taker fee of $0.05 for simple,
non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While
it is slightly more than 1/10th the $0.45 fee for standard-sized C2
Market-Maker simple, non-complex Taker orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF options classes, as noted earlier, the cost to the
Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same as
for standard options, and therefore, in some situations, the Exchange
must assess a Minis fee of more than 1/10th the amount assessed for
standard options transactions. Further, the Exchange does not desire to
assess sub-penny transaction fees for simple, non-complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes, and this amount
allows the Exchange to assess a Taker fee that is $0.01 more than the
Maker rebate for simple, non-complex C2 Market-Maker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes, and such a
difference is necessary for reasons of economic viability. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
a higher Taker fee for simple, non-complex C2 Market-Maker orders in
all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes than for
corresponding Taker orders in those classes that come from all other
origins (except Public Customers) because the Exchange is also
providing a higher Maker rebate to C2 Market-Makers for such orders.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a Maker rebate of
$0.03 for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and
ETF mini-options classes from all other origins (Professional Customer,
Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.) is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While this amount is
slightly less than 1/10th the amount of the rebate for standard-sized
simple, non-complex Maker orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF
options classes from all other origins, as noted earlier, the cost to
the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Minis is the same
as for standard options, and therefore, in some situations, the
Exchange cannot provide a Minis rebate of equal to or greater than 1/
10th the amount provided for standard options transactions. The
Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a Taker fee of $0.04 for
simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-
options classes from all other origins is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is slightly less than 1/10th the
$0.45 fee for standard-sized simple, non-complex Taker orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF options classes from all other origins.
The Exchange offers this slightly-lower-than-1/10th fee in order to
prevent the Exchange from having a difference of more than $0.01
between the rebate offered and fee assessed for simple, non-complex
orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes from
all other origins. Further, the offering of a Maker rebate that is
slightly lower than 1/10th that offered for standard options is offset
by the fact that the Exchange is offering a fee of slightly lower than
1/10th that assessed for standard options.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer a fee and rebate structure for simple, non-
complex Public Customer orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF
mini-options classes that does not include a difference between the
Maker rebate and Taker fee (as opposed to simple, non-complex orders
from C2 Market-Makers and all other origins in all multiply-listed
index and ETF mini-options classes) because this is intended to
incentivize Public Customers to send simple, non-complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes to the Exchange.
This is beneficial to all other participants on the Exchange who
generally seek to trade with Public Customer order flow and who benefit
from the increased volume and trading opportunities. Further, the
options marketplace has a history of offering preferential pricing to
Customers. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess to C2 Market-Makers a higher Taker fee for
simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-
options classes than that assessed to all other market participants
because the Exchange is also offering a higher Maker rebate to C2
Market-Makers for such orders than is being offered to orders from all
other origins (except Public Customers), and because this allows the
Exchange to maintain a $.01 difference between the C2 Market-Maker
Taker fee and Maker rebate (the same difference as is being maintained
between the Taker fee and Maker rebate for orders from all other
origins (except Public Customers)).
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess no fees for
Mini Trades on the Open because this will allow all market participants
to avoid paying fees for such trades. The Exchange believes that this
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to
all market participants, and because the Exchange currently does not
assess fees for Trades on the Open for standard options.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Mini fee and rebate
structure (including maximum fees and rebates) for simple, non-complex
orders in equity options classes is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the proposed amounts are all 1/10th the
amounts of the fees and rebates (including maximum fees and rebates)
for simple, non-complex orders in standard-sized equity options
classes.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to set a Public Customer
rebate (for both Makers and Takers) for complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF mini-options classes of $0.03 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This amount is slightly less
than 1/10th the amount of the rebate for standard-sized complex Public
Customer orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF options classes.
Nonetheless, this is still a rebate (as opposed to a fee). Further, as
noted earlier, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and
trades in Minis is the same as for standard options, and therefore, in
some situations, the Exchange cannot provide a Minis rebate of equal to
or greater than 1/10th the amount provided for standard options
transactions. The Exchange believes that applying the statement that no
Maker or Taker fee or rebate will apply to Public Customer Mini orders
that trade with other Public Customer complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF options classes to Minis is reasonable because it
would not be economically viable to give a rebate to both sides of an
order or to give to one side of an order if the other side was not
assessed a fee. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because this statement applies to Public Customer complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF standard-sized options classes.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a Maker fee of $0.01
for C2 Market-Maker complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF
mini-options classes and of $0.02 for complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF mini-options classes from all other

origins is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. These
amounts are exactly 1/10th the amounts of their respective
corresponding fees for standard-sized complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF options classes. The Exchange believes the
proposal to adopt a Taker fee of $0.03 for complex orders in all
multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options classes from C2 Market-
Makers and all other origins is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. This amount is slightly less than 1/10th the
corresponding fees for standard-sized complex orders in all multiply-
listed index and ETF options classes and is intended to encourage
trading of complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-
options classes.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer rebates for both Maker and Taker complex Public
Customer orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes (as opposed to complex orders from C2 Market-Makers and all
other origins in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes) because this is intended to incentivize Public Customers to
send complex orders in all multiply-listed index and ETF mini-options
classes to the Exchange. This is beneficial to all other participants
on the Exchange who generally seek to trade with Public Customer order
flow and who benefit from the increased volume and trading
opportunities. Further, the options marketplace has a history of
offering preferential pricing to Customers. The Exchange believes that
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess to C2 Market-
Makers a lower Maker fee for complex orders in all multiply-listed
index and ETF mini-options classes than that assessed to all other
market participants (excluding Public Customers) because C2 Market-
Makers take on obligations, such as quoting obligations, that other
market participants do not need to take on.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to encompass Minis within
the current statement on the Exchange's Fees Schedule that for all
complex order transactions in equity options classes, all components of
such transactions (including simple, non-complex orders and/or quotes
that execute against a complex order) will be assessed no fee (or
rebate) is reasonable because it will allow market participants trading
complex Mini equity options to avoid paying a fee for doing so. The
Exchange believes this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies to all market participants, and because this
statement currently applies to standard-sized complex equity options.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer different fee and rebate structures for simple
and complex orders in Mini classes because the nature, incentives and
economics of trading for simple and complex orders can be very
different. Further, the Exchange currently offers different fee and
rebate structures for simple and complex orders in standard-sized
options classes,\13\ and the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') proposes to assess different fees and rebates for simple and
complex orders in Mini options.\14\ The Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer different fee and
rebate structures for multiply-listed index and ETF options and for
multiply-listed equity options because the nature, incentives and
economics of trading of index and ETF options and equity options can be
very different. Further, the Exchange currently offers different fee
and rebate structures for index and ETF options and equity options,\15\
as does the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1.
    \14\ See SR-ISE-2013-24, available at http://www.ise.com/assets/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/proposed_rule_changes/2013/SR-ISE-
2013-24$Proposed_Rule_Change_to_Establish_Fees_and_Rebates_
for_Mini_Options$20130314.pdf.
    \15\ See C2 Fees Schedule, Section 1.
    \16\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that subjecting Minis to the same amounts as
standard options for purposes of PULSe Workstation Fees is reasonable
because the costs of operating and maintaining the PULSe Workstations
for Mini transactions are the same as for standard options
transactions. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the same fee amounts will be assessed for Minis as for standard
options, and because such fees will apply to all Mini transactions.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to treat Mini options the
same as standard options for purposes of the Linkage Fees is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following
reasons. The Linkage Fees are designed to help recover the Exchange's
costs in routing orders to other exchanges. The Exchange believes that
the OCC and broker-dealers will be assessing the same charges for Minis
as are assessed to standard options. Further, the Exchange's costs for
routing Minis through to other exchanges will be the same as the
Exchange's costs for routing standard options to other exchanges. As
such, the Exchange believes that it makes sense apply to Mini options
the same Linkage Fees structure as applies to standard options. The
Exchange notes that participants can avoid the Linkage Fees in several
ways. First, they can simply route to the exchange with the best priced
interest. The Exchange, in recognition of the fact that markets can
move while orders are in flight, also offers participants the ability
to utilize order types that do not route to other exchanges.
Specifically, the IOC Order is one such order that would never route to
another exchange. For all these reasons, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and equitable to apply to Mini options the same Linkage Fees
structure as applies to standard options. Further, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to treat
Mini options the same as standard options for purposes of the Linkage
Fees for that tautological reason; Mini options will be treated the
same as standard options for the purposes of Linkage Fees. Finally,
since the Linkage Fees will apply to all participants in Minis as they
apply for standard options, and because such Linkage Fees have not
previously been found to be unreasonable, inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory, the Exchange believes this to be the case for Minis as
well.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess the same ORF
amount to Minis as are assessed to standard options is reasonable
because, as noted, the costs to the Exchange to process quotes, orders,
trades and the necessary regulatory surveillance programs and
procedures in Minis are the same as for standard option contracts. As
such, the Exchange feels that it is appropriate to charge the ORF at
the same rate as the standard option contract. Further, the Exchange
notes that the cost to perform surveillance to ensure compliance with
various Exchange and industry-wide rules is no different for a Mini
option than it is for a standard option contract. Reducing the ORF for
Mini options could result in a higher ORF for standard options. As
such, the Exchange currently believes that the appropriate approach is
to treat both Minis and standard options the same with respect to the
amount of the ORF that is being charged. The proposed ORF for Minis is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the same ORF amount
is currently assessed to standard options. Further, all Minis will be
assessed the ORF. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to count

revenue from Mini trading towards the DEA Fee because revenue from Mini
trading is revenue, and other revenue counts towards the DEA Fee. The
Exchange also believes that this is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply to all market participants to whom
the DEA Fee apply.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to correct the
references in Section 1C of the Fees Schedule is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Correcting
the references prevents confusion, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change designed
to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule
with respect to the fees applicable to Minis.
    The Exchange believes that adopting fees for Minis that are in some
cases lower than for standard contracts, but in other cases the same as
for standard contracts, strikes the appropriate balance between fees
applicable to standard contracts versus fees applicable to Minis, and
will not impose a burden on competition among various market
participants on the Exchange not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the Exchange
proposes assessing different fee amounts to different Exchange market
participants, the Exchange believes that such differing assessments
will not impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket competition due to
the different natures of such market participants and different
obligations imposed on such market participants (as described above).
Further, in the cases in which some market participants are assessed
lower fee amounts than others, the Exchange often does so with the
intention of attracting greater trading from those market participants,
and the increased volume and trading opportunities benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees structure for Mini
options will not impose an unnecessary burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees structure for
Minis is competitive with those being offered by other exchanges. As
such, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees structure for Minis
will increase intermarket competition, which benefits all market
participants. To the extent that market participants on other exchanges
may be attracted to trade on C2 by the proposed fees structure for Mini
options, they are always welcome to become market participants on C2.
    As Minis are a new product being introduced into the listed options
marketplace, the Exchange is unable at this time to absolutely
determine the impact that the fees and rebates proposed herein will
have on trading in Minis. That said, however, the Exchange believes
that the rates proposed for Minis would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \19\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR [sic] 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2013-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-
2013-017, and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08089 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P