[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71675]
[DOCID:fr18de07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 12, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-173.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits amendment to two Rate
Schedule FSS and ETS negotiated rate agreements with Wisconsin Gas LLC,
to be effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-174.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits two Rate Schedule FSS
negotiated rate agreements with Tenaska Gas Storage, LLC, to be
effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-175.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits two Rate Schedule FSS
negotiated rate service agreements with Nexen Marketing USA Inc, to be
effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-176.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co submits Rate Schedule FTS-1 and FSS
negotiated rate service agreements with Chevron USA Inc, to be
effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-177.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1
negotiated rate agreement with Tenaska Marketing Ventures, to be
effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-178.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1 and
GF-1 negotiated rate service agreements with Merrill Lynch Commodities,
Inc, to be effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-179.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1 and
FSS negotiated rate service agreements with the City of Virginia d/b/a
Department of Public Utilities, to be effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-180.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to five ETS
negotiated rate agreements with Wisconsin Electric Power Co, to be
effective 4/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-181.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co submits an amendment to the FSS & NNS
negotiated rate agreements with Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-513-001.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sub Third
Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
effective 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071211-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 19, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24455 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Subject: Samsung Testing Results
Date: January 3, 2013, 11:00 to 11:40 AM
Re: Samsung Semiconductor Testing Results for Point of Use (POU) Abatement Systems and Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F-GHGs)
Background:  Samsung requested a phone call with EPA to discuss the results of tests conducted in 2012 to measure the DRE of point of use abatement systems.  These results are relevant to the recently proposed rule, "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I" [77 FR 63538, October 16, 2012].  EPA is documenting the phone call for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
Attendees:
EPA  - Anhar Karimjee, Deborah Ottinger, Jennifer Bohman
Samsung  -  Tim Jones
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Consultant - John Holmes
Eastern Research Group  -  Brian Palmer, EPA contractor
Summary:
Samsung reported that they tested the F-GHG DRE of the POU abatement systems on 24 units at their US semiconductor manufacturing facility. These abatement systems are manufactured by CSK and are controlling emissions from etch processes.  The abatement systems are not designed or intended to control F-GHG emissions. Instead, they are primarily intended to control ammonia and fluorine gas emissions. Samsung reported that their facility in South Korea has the same CSK abatement systems in place, but also has an additional system that is designed specifically to control F-GHG emissions.
The DRE was measured using the EPA's DRE protocol that is incorporated by reference into subpart I. The testing was performed by a testing contractor (URS Corporation) that is experienced with this method and the source category.
The CSK systems at the US facility were able to achieve substantial emission reductions of some of the F-GHGs that were measured. However, the measured DRE of perfluoromethane (CF4) was substantially below the default DRE value of 60 percent that is included in the present 40 CFR part 98 subpart I and that is included in the proposed amendments as a default DRE for CF4. Samsung reported that the systems have no manufacturer-claimed DRE for CF4.  However, Samsung is working with the manufacturer to see whether the systems' performance can be improved to achieve a 60 percent DRE for CF4.  Samsung stated that they assumed no DRE for the abatement systems when calculating the F-GHG emissions included in their 2011 annual report.
Samsung and SIA stated that they will submit comments on how the final rule should consider these testing results.  SIA also stated that they would only include data from systems designed to control F-GHGs in any data submitted to EPA in support of the proposed default DRE values in proposed Table I-16 of the proposed amendments.
EPA noted that the comment period for the proposed amendments will close on January 16, 2013. EPA encouraged Samsung and SIA to submit any data that are available as soon as possible so that other commenters can consider the data before the end of the comment period.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 12540]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05182]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77287; File No. SR-BATS-2015-124]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to BATS Rule 14.11(i),
Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares of the REX VolMAXX Long
VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF and the REX VolMAXX Inverse VIX Weekly
Futures Strategy ETF of the Exchange Traded Concepts Trust

March 3, 2016.
    On December 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the REX VolMAXX Long VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF and the
REX VolMAXX Inverse VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF (each a ``Fund''
and collectively, the ``Funds'') of the Exchange Traded Concepts Trust
under BATS Rule 14.11(i). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016.\3\ On February 10,
2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change,
and on February 12, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76884 (January 13,
2016), 81 FR 3195.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, which replaced and superseded the
original filing in its entirety, the Exchange provided additional
information and representations regarding the Funds' investments,
how certain investments would be valued for the net asset value
calculation, the availability of price information for certain
investments, and provided certain additional clarifications to the
proposed rule change. Amendment No. 1 is available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-124/bats2015124-1.pdf. In
Amendment No. 2, the Exchange added a representation that the Funds
will not invest in leveraged (e.g., 2X, -2X, 3X or -3X) investment
company securities. Amendment No. 2 is available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-124/bats2015124-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates
April 19, 2016 as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BATS-2015-124), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05182 Filed 3-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41013-41014]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14227-000]

Nevada Hydro Company, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Draft License Application, and Request To Waive
Pre-Filing Requirements

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Waive Pre-Filing Requirements.
    b. Project No.: 14227-000.
    c. Dated Filed: June 1, 2017.
    d. Submitted By: Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. (Nevada Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS)
Project.
    f. Location: On Lake Elsinore and San Juan Creek near the town of
Lake Elsinore in Riverside and San Diego counties, California. The
project would occupy about 845 acres of federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Rexford Wait, Nevada Hydro Company, Inc.,
2416 Cades Way Vista, California<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. On June 1, 2017, Nevada Hydro filed a request that the
Commission waive certain of the pre-filing consultation requirements of
Part 5 of the Commission's regulations for the proposed LEAPS Project
to include: pre-filing scoping; \1\ comments and information or study
requests; the preparation of and comments on a proposed study plan;
resolution of disputes over studies; \2\ and notice of the applicant's
intent to file a draft license application.\3\ Nevada Hydro's
justification for the waivers is that a Final Environmental Impact
Statement, prepared by Commission staff, was issued in 2007 for
essentially the same project proposal under P-11858 and the
consultation on the current project proposal that has already occurred
meets the intent of the Commission's pre-filing consultation
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.8 (2017).
    \2\ 18 CFR 5.9, 5.11-5.15 (2017).
    \3\ 18 CFR 5.16 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice we are soliciting comments on Nevada Hydro's
notice of intent and request to waive pre-filing requirements. All
comments should be sent to the address in paragraph l below.
    k. The NOI, waiver request, and associated filings are available
for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site (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 Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph
h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    l. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In lieu of electronic filing, please send a
paper

copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-14227-000.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
Comments on NOI. Any individual or entity interested in submitting NOI
comments must do so by September 22, 2017.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18235 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78227-78228]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465; FRL 9940-12-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Water Quality Standards
Regulation (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0988.12, OMB Control No. 2040-0049)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through December 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register (80 FR 37616 on July 1, 2015), during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below. An Agency may
not

conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 15,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0465, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tangela Cooper, Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection
Division, (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Water quality standards are provisions of state, tribal,
and federal law that consist of designated uses for waters of the
United States, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses,
and an antidegradation policy. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act
requires states and authorized tribes to establish water quality
standards, and to review and, if appropriate, revise their water
quality standards once every three years. The Act also requires EPA to
review and either approve or disapprove the new or revised standards,
and to promulgate replacement federal standards if necessary. Section
118(c)(2) of the Act specifies additional water quality standards
requirements for waters of the Great Lakes system.
    The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part 131 and
portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water
quality standards program. The Regulation describes requirements and
procedures for states and authorized tribes to develop, review, and
revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing
and approving the water quality standards. The regulation also
establishes specific additional requirements for water quality
standards and their implementation in the waters of the Great Lakes
system, contained in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System (40 CFR part 132).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: States, territories, and Indian
tribes with EPA-approved standards; NPDES-permitted facilities that
discharge into the Great Lakes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory or required to obtain
or retain a benefit, pursuant to 40 CFR parts 131 and 132.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2,787 (total).
    Frequency of response: Generally annual.
    Total estimated burden: 292,305 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $13,579,575 (per year). There are no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 15,324 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects an increase in the estimated
number of respondents to reflect EPA's approval of water quality
standards for four additional tribes, and minor adjustments to reflect
updated estimates of Great Lakes activities.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-31538 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42727-42731]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0479; FRL-8696-2]

Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone Standard for
the Southern New Jersey Portion of the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the one-hour ozone
nonattainment area in Southern New Jersey, that is, the New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD area,
attained the one-hour ozone standard, is not subject to the imposition
of penalty fees under section 185 of the Clean Air Act and does not
need to implement contingency measures. Areas that EPA classified as
severe ozone nonattainment areas for the one-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard and did not attain the Standard by the applicable
attainment date of November 15, 2005 may be subject to these penalty
fees. However, since the air quality in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton area attained the ozone standard as of November 15, 2005, EPA
is proposing not to implement these fees. This proposed determination
of attainment is not a redesignation of attainment for this area, only
a fulfillment of a Clean Air Act obligation to determine if an area
attains the ozone standard by its applicable attainment date.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2008-0479, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional

Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2008-0479. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Are Today's Actions?
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
    II.a. When Were These Areas Designated and Where Are They
Located?
    II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Have on
Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Including
Section 185?
    II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies with the
One-Hour Ozone Standard?
    II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA to Determine Attainment
of the One-Hour Ozone Standard?
    II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan Nonattainment Area
Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2005?
    II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard Need To
Implement the Section 185 Fee Program?
IV. What Is EPA Proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are Today's Actions?

    EPA is proposing two actions for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD one-hour ozone nonattainment area (the
``Philadelphia metropolitan'' nonattainment area). First, EPA is
proposing to determine that this area attained the one-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by its attainment date,
November 15, 2005. Because EPA is proposing to find that this area has
attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date,
EPA also proposes to find that this area is not subject to the
imposition of the section 185 penalty fees and does not need to
implement contingency measures. In a separate proposed rule at 73 FR
22896, EPA's Region 3 office proposed to find that the Philadelphia
metropolitan nonattainment area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by
its applicable attainment date and is not subject to the imposition of
section 185 penalty fees. Since EPA region 2 retains authority for
addressing comments and making findings for the New Jersey portion of
the area, we are issuing this separate notice.
    Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA must determine whether
ozone nonattainment areas attained the ozone NAAQS by their attainment
date. EPA uses an area's design value, calculated from three years of
complete, quality assured air monitoring data as of the attainment
date. For the Philadelphia area, attainment date is 2005; therefore EPA
is using the 2005 design value, which includes air quality monitoring
data for the 2003 through 2005 ozone seasons. The design value used for
the one-hour ozone NAAQS is the fourth highest daily one-hour ozone
concentration over the three-year period. Since this value is not
greater than 0.12 parts per million (ppm) at any monitor in the
nonattainment area, this area is attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA remains obligated under section 181(b)(2) to determine
whether an area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment
date. However, after the revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher
classification for the one-hour NAAQS based upon a determination
that the area failed to attain the one-hour NAAQS by the area's
attainment date for the one-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).)
Thus even if we make a finding that an area has failed to attain the
one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, the area would not be
reclassified to a higher classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Is the Background for These Actions?

II.a. When Were These Areas Designated and Where Are They Located?

    When the CAA Amendments were enacted in 1990, each area of the
country that was designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS,
including the Philadelphia metropolitan area, was classified by
operation of law as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. (See CAA
sections 107(d)(1)(c) and 181(a).) The Philadelphia one-hour ozone
nonattainment area was classified as ``severe-15'' with a statutory
attainment date of November 15, 2005. See 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991. Section 185(a) of the CAA states that for a severe or extreme
ozone nonattainment area a State must collect fees on certain
stationary sources of air pollution if the area ``has failed to attain
the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the
applicable attainment date.'' The Philadelphia area consists of the
following counties: Cecil County, Maryland; Kent and New Castle
Counties in Delaware; Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester,
Mercer, and Salem Counties in New Jersey; and, Bucks, Chester,
Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania.

II.b. What Effect Did the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Have on
Requirements for the One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Including
Section 185?

    In an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and
classified most areas of the country under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS
promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. On April 30, 2004, EPA also issued a final
rule (69 FR

23951) entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 1'' (Phase 1 Rule). Among other
matters, this rule revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS in the Philadelphia
area (as well as most other areas of the country), effective June 15,
2005. (See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996; and 70 FR 44470, August 3,
2005.) This Phase 1 Rule also set forth how anti-backsliding principles
will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the eight-hour
ozone NAAQS by identifying which one-hour requirements remain
applicable in an area after revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Among the requirements not retained were the section 185
requirements for one-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that
fail to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable one-hour
attainment date and the requirement to implement contingency measures
for failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. (See, 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004, and 70 FR 30592,
May 26, 2005.)
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the eight-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006).
Subsequently, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to several petitions for
rehearing, the Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only
with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully
challenged. With respect to the challenges to the anti-backsliding
provisions of the rule, the Court vacated three provisions that would
have allowed States to remove from the SIP or to not adopt three one-
hour obligations once the one-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked: (1)
Nonattainment area new source review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's one-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185
requirement for one-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas that
fail to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the one-hour attainment
date; and (3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9)
or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the one-hour NAAQS or
for failure to attain that NAAQS. The Court clarified that one-hour
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(a)-(c) remain in effect and areas
must continue to meet those anti-backsliding requirements. However, the
three provisions noted previously, which are specified in 51.905(e),
were vacated by the Court. As a result, States must continue to meet
the obligations for one-hour NSR; one-hour contingency measures; and,
for severe and extreme areas, the obligations related to the section
185 requirement. Currently, EPA is developing two proposed rules to
address the Court's vacatur and remand with respect to these three
requirements. EPA will address in this proposed rule how the one-hour
obligations that currently continue to apply under EPA's anti-
backsliding rule (as interpreted by the Court) apply where EPA has made
a determination that the area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its
attainment date.

II.c. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the One-Hour
Ozone Standard?

    Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9
includes no discussion of specific data handling conventions, EPA's
publicly articulated position and the approach long since universally
adopted by the air quality management community is that the
interpretation of the one-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient
air quality data consistent with the stated level of the standard,
which is 0.12 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that: ``The level of the
national one-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts per million. * * * The standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations of 0.12 parts per million * * *
is equal to or less than 1, as determined by appendix H to this part.''
    EPA has clearly communicated the data handling conventions for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS in guidance documents. As early as 1979, EPA
issued guidance that the level of our NAAQS dictates the number of
significant figures to be used in determining whether the standard was
exceeded. The stated level of the standard is taken as defining the
number of significant figures to be used in comparisons with the
standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm means that
measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005 rounds up),
and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value in excess
of the level of the standard. (See, ``Guideline for the Interpretation
of Ozone Air Quality Standards,'' EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108,
January 1979.) EPA has consistently applied the rounding convention in
this 1979 guideline. For example, see, 68 FR 19106 at 19111, April 17,
2003; 68 FR 62041 at 62043, October 31, 2003; and, 69 FR 21717 at
21719, April 22, 2004.

II.d. Does the Clean Air Act Require EPA To Determine Attainment of the
One-Hour Ozone Standard?

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator to determine after
the attainment date whether ozone nonattainment areas have attained the
NAAQS. This provision states: ``Within 6 months following the
applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof) for an
ozone nonattainment area, the Administrator shall determine, based on
the area's design value (as of the attainment date), whether the area
attained the standard by the date.'' Although section 181(b)(2)(A)
states that the determination of attainment status be based on the
area's ``design value,'' EPA interprets this provision generally to
refer to EPA's methodology for determining attainment status. That is,
EPA determines attainment status under the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the
basis of the annual average number of expected exceedances of the NAAQS
over the three-year period up to, and including, the attainment date.
(See, 60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995 and see, also, ``General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990,'' 57 FR 13498 at 13506, April 16, 1992 (the ``General
Preamble'').
    EPA will determine whether an area's air quality is meeting the
NAAQS for purposes of sections 181(b)(2) based upon data that has been
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database, (formerly known as
the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)). The one-hour ozone
NAAQS is 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded on average more than 1 day per
year averaged over any 3-year period. (See 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H
to 40 CFR part 50.) To account for missing data, the procedures found
in appendix H to 40 CFR part 50 are used to adjust the actual number of
monitored exceedances of the standard to yield the annual number of
expected exceedances (``expected exceedance days'') at an air quality
monitoring site. Under EPA's policies, we determine if an area has
attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, the
average expected number of days over the standard per year (i.e.,
``average number of expected exceedance days'')

during the applicable 3-year period. See, generally the General
Preamble, 57 FR at 13506, April 16, 1992 and Memorandum from D. Kent
Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to
Regional Air Office Directors; ``Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and
Extensions for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' February 3, 1994.
While the latter is explicitly applicable only to marginal areas, the
general procedures for evaluating attainment in terms of the average
number of expected exceedance days during the applicable 3-year period
in this memorandum apply regardless of the initial classification of an
area because all findings of attainment are made pursuant to the same
CAA requirements in section 181(b)(2).
    As noted previously, the applicable attainment date under the one-
hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia metropolitan area was November
15, 2005. Under these requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas
with a statutory attainment date of November 15, 2005, EPA bases its
proposed determination of attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date on the average number of expected exceedance
days per year for the period 2003 though 2005 to determine whether the
area met its applicable attainment date under section 181 of the CAA.
EPA has reviewed this data to determine the area's air quality status
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9, and EPA policy guidance as discussed in
the preceding paragraphs and in the previous discussion on rounding
conventions elsewhere in this document.

II.e. Did the Philadelphia Metropolitan Nonattainment Area Attain the
One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2005?

    As noted previously, the applicable attainment date for the
Philadelphia metropolitan nonattainment area was November 15, 2005. EPA
is evaluating attainment based on the data from 2003 through 2005.
During the entire 2003 to 2005 period, state and local air pollution
control agencies operated eighteen ozone monitoring stations in the
Philadelphia area. One other monitor discontinued operations in
2003.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This was the monitor located at West Chester University in
West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania (AQS ID
420290050). The monitor had averaged 0.3 exceedances per year over
this 3-year period from 2001 to 2003. Therefore, EPA concludes that
this monitor was attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS at the time
monitoring ceased at this site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the ozone data collected at the eighteen ozone
monitoring stations during the 2003 to 2005 period and included in AQS
for the Philadelphia area. These data have been quality assured and are
recorded in AQS. The Philadelphia area States use the AQS as the
permanent database to maintain its data and quality assure the data
transfers and content for accuracy. EPA has used the established
rounding conventions set forth in our guidance documents and
regulations.

Table 1.--Average Number of Ozone Expected Exceedance Days per Year by Monitors in the Philadelphia Area 2003 to
                                                      2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Monitor information                               Number of expected         Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------      exceedance days          number of
                                                                      ---------------------------    expected
                                                                                exceedance
         State                     Monitor                 AQS ID        2003     2004     2005    days per year
                                                                                2003-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE....................  Killens Pond Rd, Kent Co.....       100010002      1.0      0.0      0.0             0.3
DE....................  Lums Pond State Park, New           100031007      1.0      0.0      2.0             1.0
                         Castle Co.
DE....................  Brandywine Creek State Park,        100031010      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         New Castle Co.
DE....................  Bellevue State Park, New            100031013      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         Castle Co.
MD....................  Fairhill, Cecil Co...........       240150003      0.0      0.0      2.0             0.7
NJ....................  Copewood E. Davis Sts, Camden       340070003      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
NJ....................  Ancora State Hospital, Camden       340071001      2.0      0.0      0.0             0.7
                         Co.
NJ....................  Lincoln Ave. & Highway 55,          340110007      1.0      0.0      1.0             0.7
                         Vineland, Cumberland Co.
NJ....................  Shady Lane Rest Home,               340150002      2.0      0.0      0.0             0.7
                         Clarksboro, Gloucester Co.
NJ....................  Rider College, Mercer Co.....       340210005      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
PA....................  Rockview Lane, Bristol, Bucks       420170012      0.0      0.0      1.0             0.3
                         Co.
PA....................  New Garden Airport--                420290100      0.0      0.0      1.0             0.3
                         Toughkenamon, Chester Co.
PA....................  Front St & Norris St,               420450002      0.0      0.0      1.1             0.4
                         Chester, Delaware Co.
PA....................  State Armory, Norristown,           420910013      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         Montgomery Co.
PA....................  1501 E Lycoming Ave AMS Lab,        421010004      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         Philadelphia.
PA....................  Roxy Water Pump Sta,                421010014      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         Philadelphia.
PA....................  Grant-Ashton Roads, NE              421010024      0.0      0.0      2.0             0.7
                         Airport, Philadelphia.
PA....................  Amtrak, 5917 Elmwood Avenue,        421010136      0.0      0.0      0.0             0.0
                         Philadelphia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.

    As shown in Table 1, the average number of expected exceedance days
per year is less than or equal to 1.0 at all of the sites. Therefore,
EPA proposes to find that the Philadelphia area attained the one-hour
ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005, which was the applicable attainment
date under the one-hour ozone NAAQS for this nonattainment area.

II.f. Do Areas That Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard Need To
Implement the Section 185 Fee Program?

    If a severe or extreme one-hour ozone nonattainment area attains by
its one-hour ozone attainment date, it is not required to implement the
section 185 penalty fees program. Section 185(a) of the CAA states that
a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area must implement a program
to impose fees on certain stationary sources of air pollution if the
area ``has failed to attain the national primary ambient air quality
standard for ozone by the applicable attainment date.'' Consequently,
if such an area has attained the standard as of its applicable
attainment date, even if it subsequently lapses into nonattainment, the
area would not be required to

implement the section 185 penalty fees program.
    In addition, because the area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date, the area is not subject to the
requirement to implement contingency measures for failure to attain the
one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. Since the area has met its
attainment deadline, even if the area subsequently lapses into
nonattainment, it would not be required to implement the contingency
measures for failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its
attainment date.

IV. What Is EPA Proposing?

    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2003 to 2005, EPA is proposing to determine that the New Jersey
portion of the Philadelphia severe one-hour ozone nonattainment area
attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
November 15, 2005. EPA also proposes to find that this area is not
subject to the imposition of the section 185 penalty fees and will not
need to implement contingency measures, which were required to be
implemented only if the area did not attain the one-hour standard by
the attainment date.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and
would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air
quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to determine
that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply
because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when
determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary
consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and
monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the
Clean Air Act.
    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule
involves a proposed determination of attainment based on air quality
data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 8, 2008.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E8-16836 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40883-40886]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13220]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97736; File No. SR-ISE-2023-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Sections 3 and 6

June 15, 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 June 1, 2023, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7, Section 3, Regular Order Fees and Rebates and Options 7,
Section 6, Other Options Fees and Rebates.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's

Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, Regular Order Fees and
Rebates, and Options 7, Section 6, Other Options Fees and Rebates.
Options 7, Section 3
    Currently, for Regular Orders \3\ in Select \4\ and Non-Select
Symbols,\5\ the Exchange assesses all Non-Priority Customer \6\ market
participants a Fee for PIM \7\ Orders of $0.10 per contract.\8\
Additionally, today, for Regular Orders in Select Symbols, the Exchange
assesses all market participants a Fee for Responses to PIM Orders of
$0.50 per contract. Finally, today, for Regular Orders in Non-Select
Symbols, the Exchange assesses all market participants a Fee for
Responses to PIM Orders of $1.10 per contract.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Regular Order'' is an order that consists of only a
single option series and is not submitted with a stock leg.
    \4\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the Nasdaq ISE that are in the Penny Interval Program. See
Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \5\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \6\ ``Non-Priority Customers'' include Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq
ISE Market Makers (FarMMs), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers, and
Professional Customers.
    \7\ PIM is the Exchange's Price Improvement Auction as described
in Options 3, Section 13. A PIM is comprised of the order the
Electronic Access Member represents as agent (the ``Agency Order'')
and a counter-side order for the full size of the Agency Order (the
``Counter-Side Order''). Responses, including the Counter-Side
Order, and Improvement Orders may be entered during the exposure
period. See Options 3, Section 13.
    \8\ Priority Customers are not assessed a Fee for PIM Orders.
Also, Fees for PIM Orders apply to the originating and contra order.
Further, other than for Priority Customer orders, this fee is $0.05
per contract for orders executed by Members that execute an ADV of
7,500 or more contracts in the PIM in a given month. Members that
execute an ADV of 12,500 or more contracts in the PIM are charged
$0.02 per contract. The discounted fees are applied retroactively to
all eligible PIM volume in that month once the threshold has been
reached. See notes 2 and 13 within the Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 3.
    \9\ PIM pricing is specified in Options 7, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees and Rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange pays Electronic Access Members \10\ that
utilize PIM to execute more than 0.75% of Priority Customer \11\ volume
of Regular Orders, calculated as a percentage of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') per day in a given month, a PIM Break-Up
Rebate of $0.26 per contract for Select Symbols and $0.60 per contract
for Non-Select Symbols for Priority Customer Regular Orders under 100
contracts that are submitted to PIM and do not trade with their contra
order except when those contracts trade against unrelated quotes or
orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Electronic Access Member'' or ``EAM'' means a
Member that is approved to exercise trading privileges associated
with EAM Rights. See General 1, section 1(a)(6).
    \11\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Options 1,
section 1(a)(37). Unless otherwise noted, when used in this Pricing
Schedule the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail'' as
defined below. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \12\ See note 19 of Options 7, Section 3. Also, the Exchange
notes that the applicable fee is applied to any contracts for which
a rebate is provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the incentive in note
19 of Options 7, Section 3 to increase the 100 contract requirement to
250 contracts. The Exchange seeks to continue to incentivize Electronic
Access Members to submit a greater amount of smaller, more typically
sized Priority Customer orders into PIM for price improvement with the
proposed pricing. The Exchange believes the 100 contract threshold may
be too narrow to represent all small-sized orders and would like to
expand the contract size to 250 contracts to capture a greater amount
of smaller sized orders. All Electronic Access Members may participate
in a PIM.\13\ Accordingly, the rebates, as amended, are designed to
incentivize Electronic Access Members to submit a greater amount of
Regular Orders executed in PIM to the Exchange, particularly Priority
Customer PIM volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Any solicited Counter-Side Orders submitted by an
Electronic Access Member to trade against Agency Orders may not be
for the account of a Nasdaq ISE Market Maker assigned to the options
class. See Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 6
    Today, the Exchange offers a PIM Rebate within Options 7, Section
6, Other Options Fees and Rebates. Specifically, Options 7, Section
6.C, PIM and Facilitation Rebate, pays a rebate of $0.11 per contract
to Electronic Access Members that utilize PIM to execute more than
0.75% of Priority Customer volume in Regular Orders, calculated as a
percentage of TCV per day in a given month.\14\ The rebate is paid for
Priority Customer Regular Orders under 100 contracts that are submitted
to PIM.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Eligible volume from Affiliated Members will be aggregated
in calculating the percentage.
    \15\ The rebate is paid to the Agency Order as that term is
defined within Options 3, Section 13. In the event a Crossing
Transaction consists of two Priority Customer Orders, the Exchange
would not pay this rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the PIM Rebate within
Options 7, Section 6.C to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250
contracts. The Exchange seeks to continue to incentivize Electronic
Access Members to submit a greater amount of smaller, more typically
sized Priority Customer orders into PIM for price improvement with the
proposed pricing. The Exchange believes the 100 contract threshold may
be too narrow to represent all small-sized orders and would like to
expand the contract size to 250 contracts to capture a greater amount
of smaller sized orders. All Electronic Access Members may participate
in a PIM.\16\ Accordingly, the rebate, as amended, is designed to
incentivize Electronic Access Members to submit a greater amount of
Regular Orders executed in PIM to the Exchange, particularly Priority
Customer PIM volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Any solicited Counter-Side Orders submitted by an
Electronic Access Member to trade against Agency Orders may not be
for the account of a Nasdaq ISE Market Maker assigned to the options
class. See Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the sentence that states,
``Provided this rebate is higher than other rebates within Options 7,
Section 6B, this rebate will be paid in lieu of other rebates within
this Section B.'' The references to section ``B'' should be to section
``C''.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    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 \19\
(``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'. . . .'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \20\ 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.
Options 7, Section 3
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the incentive in note 19 of
Options 7, Section 3 to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250
contracts with respect to the Priority Customer PIM Break-Up Rebate is
reasonable because it is designed to incentivize additional
participation in PIM by encouraging market participants to send
additional order flow to the Exchange in order to benefit from the
increased rebates. In particular, the Exchange believes that this
proposal will incentivize Electronic Access Members to submit a greater
amount of Regular Orders executed in PIM to the Exchange, particularly
Priority Customer PIM volume. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
pay the rebate for orders of 250 contracts or less because the current
100 contract threshold may be too narrow to represent all small-sized
orders. The Exchange would like to expand the contract size to 250
contracts to capture a greater amount of smaller sized Priority
Customer orders for purposes of the rebate. The Exchange believes the
increased contract size will incentivize a greater amount of small-
sized Priority Customer orders to be solicited for entry into PIM for
price improvement.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the incentive in note 19 of
Options 7, Section 3 to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250
contracts with respect to the Priority Customer PIM Break-Up Rebate is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Electronic Access
Member may participate in a PIM.\21\ While only Electronic Access
Members may initiate a PIM, Market Makers may respond to a PIM. While
this incentive is specifically targeted towards Priority Customer
orders, the Exchange does not believe that this is unfairly
discriminatory. Of note, today, Priority Customers pay no Fees for PIM
Orders. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities which attracts market makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants (particularly in
response to pricing) in turn facilitates tighter spreads which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Attracting more liquidity from Priority Customers
will benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. Also, the
250 contracts threshold would be uniformly applied in paying the
rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Any solicited Counter-Side Orders submitted by an
Electronic Access Member to trade against Agency Orders may not be
for the account of a Nasdaq ISE Market Maker assigned to the options
class. See Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 7, Section 6
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the PIM rebate in Options 7,
Section 6.C to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250 contracts
with respect to Priority Customer Regular Orders is reasonable because
it is designed to incentivize additional participation in PIM by
encouraging market participants to send additional order flow to the
Exchange in order to benefit from the increased rebates. In particular,
the Exchange believes that this proposal will incentivize Electronic
Access Members to submit a greater amount of Regular Orders executed in
PIM to the Exchange, particularly Priority Customer PIM volume. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to pay the rebate for orders of 250
contracts or less because the current 100 contract threshold may be too
narrow to represent all small-sized orders. The Exchange would like to
expand the contract size to 250 contracts to capture a greater amount
of smaller sized Priority Customer orders for purposes of the rebate.
The Exchange believes the increased contract size will incentivize a
greater amount of small-sized Priority Customer orders to be solicited
for entry into PIM for price improvement.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the PIM rebate in Options 7,
Section 6.C to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250 contracts
with respect to Priority Customer Regular Orders is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because any Electronic Access Member may
participate in a PIM.\22\ While only Electronic Access Members may
initiate a PIM, Market Makers may respond to a PIM. While this
incentive is specifically targeted towards Priority Customer orders,
the Exchange does not believe that this is unfairly discriminatory. Of
note, today, Priority Customers pay no Fees for PIM Orders. Priority
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities which attracts market makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants (particularly in response to
pricing) in turn facilitates tighter spreads which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants. Attracting more liquidity from Priority Customers will
benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. Also, the 250
contracts threshold would be uniformly applied in paying the rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Any solicited Counter-Side Orders submitted by an
Electronic Access Member to trade against Agency Orders may not be
for the account of a Nasdaq ISE Market Maker assigned to the options
class. See Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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 because other options exchanges offer similar
price improvement auctions as well as break-up rebates and customer
order rebates.
    Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in

reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.
Intramarket Competition
    The proposal is designed to attract additional liquidity to ISE.
Specifically, amending the incentives to obtain greater PIM Break-Up
Rebates will incentivize market participants to direct liquidity to
ISE's PIM. All market participants will benefit from any increase in
market activity that the proposal effectuates.
Options 7, Section 3
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the incentive in note 19 of
Options 7, Section 3 to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250
contracts with respect to the Priority Customer PIM Break-Up Rebate
does not impose an undue burden on competition because any Electronic
Access Member may enter orders into PIM. While only Electronic Access
Members may initiate a PIM, the Exchange does not believe that this
creates an undue burden on competition because Market Makers may
respond to a PIM. While this incentive is specifically targeted towards
Priority Customer orders, the Exchange does not believe that this is
unfairly discriminatory. Today, Priority Customers pay no fees for PIM
Orders. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities which attracts market makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants (particularly in
response to pricing) in turn facilitates tighter spreads which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Attracting more liquidity from Priority Customers
will benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. Also, the
250 contracts threshold would be uniformly applied in paying the
rebate.
Options 7, Section 6
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the PIM rebate in Options 7,
Section 6.C to increase the 100 contract requirement to 250 contracts
with respect to Priority Customer Regular Orders does not impose an
undue burden on competition because any Electronic Access Member may
participate in a PIM. While only Electronic Access Members may initiate
a PIM, Market Makers may respond to a PIM. While this incentive is
specifically targeted towards Priority Customer orders, the Exchange
does not believe that this is unfairly discriminatory. Of note, today,
Priority Customers pay no Fees for PIM Orders. Priority Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity
of these market participants (particularly in response to pricing) in
turn facilitates tighter spreads which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Attracting more liquidity from Priority Customers will benefit all
market participants that trade on the ISE. Also, the 250 contracts
threshold would be uniformly applied in paying the rebate.

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 \23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \24\ 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: (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-ISE-2023-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-ISE-2023-12. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-ISE-2023-12 and should be
submitted on or before July 13, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13220 Filed 6-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P