operations territory:
    (a) Allowing uncertified person              5,500            10,000
     to operate.....................
    (b) Certifying without making               13,000            20,500
     determinations or relying on
     another railroad...............
    (c) Failure of
        (1) Controlling railroad                19,500            25,000
         certifying without
         determining certification
         status, knowledge, skills,
         or familiarity with
         physical characteristics...

        (2) Employing railroad to               19,500            25,000
         determine person's
         certified and qualified
         status for controlling
         railroad...................
        (3) Person to notify                    19,500            25,000
         employing railroad of lack
         of qualifications..........
    (d) Failure to provide qualified             5,500            10,000
     person.........................
240.231 Persons qualified on
 physical characteristics in other
 than joint operations:
    (a) Person unqualified, no                  19,500            25,000
     exception applies or railroad
     does not adequately address in
     program........................
    (b) Failure to have a pilot:
        (1) For engineer who has                19,500            25,000
         never been qualified.......
        (2) For engineer previously              9,500            17,000
         qualified..................

  Subpart D--Administration of the
       Certification Programs

240.301 Failure to have system for               5,500            10,000
 certificate replacement............
240.303 Monitoring operations:
    (a) Failure to have program.....            19,500            25,000
    (b) Failure to observe each                  2,500             5,000
     person annually................
    (c) Failure to test each person              2,500             5,000
     annually.......................
    (d) Failure to test properly....             2,500             5,000
240.305 Prohibited conduct:
    (a) Unlawful:
        (1) Passing of stop signal..            19,500            25,000
        (2) Control of speed........            19,500            25,000
        (3) Brake tests.............            19,500            25,000
        (4) Occupancy of main track.            19,500            25,000
        (5) Tampering or operation              19,500            25,000
         with disabled safety device
        (6) Supervisor, pilot, or               19,500            25,000
         instructor fails to take
         appropriate action.........
    (b) Failure of engineer to:
        (1) Carry certificate.......             2,500             5,000
        (2) Display certificate when             2,500             5,000
         requested..................
    (c) Failure of engineer to                  19,500            25,000
     notify railroad of limitations
     or railroad requiring engineer
     to exceed limitations..........
    (d) Failure of engineer to                  19,500            25,000
     notify railroad of denial or
     revocation.....................
240.307 Revocation of certification:
    (a) Failure to withdraw person              13,000            20,500
     from service...................
    (b) Failure to notify, provide               5,500            10,000
     hearing opportunity, or
     untimely procedures............
    (c)-(h) Failure of railroad to               5,500            10,000
     comply with hearing or waiver
     procedures.....................
    (j) Failure of railroad to make              5,500            10,000
     record.........................
    (k) Failure of railroad to                  13,000            20,500
     conduct reasonable inquiry or
     make good faith determination..
240.309 Oversight Responsibility
 Report:
    (a) Failure to report or to                  2,500             5,000
     report on time.................
    (b)-(h) Incomplete or inaccurate             5,500            10,000
     report.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
  violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
  up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
  CFR part 209, appendix A.
\2\ The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR part 240. If
  more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given
  section, each item is also designated by a ``penalty code,'' which is
  used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may
  not correspond to any subsection designation(s). For convenience,
  penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if
  any. FRA reserves the right, should litigation become necessary, to
  substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined
  CFR and penalty code citation, should they differ.

PART 241--[AMENDED]

    54. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.49.

    55. Appendix B to part 241 is revised to read as follows:

         Appendix B to Part 241--Schedule of Civil Penalties \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Willful
             Section \2\                  Violation         violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
241.9:
    (a) Requiring or permitting                 $9,500           $17,000
     extraterritorial dispatching of
     a railroad operation...........
    (c) Failing to notify FRA about              5,500            10,000
     extraterritorial dispatching of
     a railroad operation in an
     emergency situation............
241.11 Conducting a railroad
 operation that is
 extraterritorially dispatched:
    (a)(1) Generally................             9,500            17,000
    (c) In an emergency situation--              2,500             5,000
     where dispatching railroad
     fails to notify FRA of the
     extraterritorial dispatching...
241.13 Requiring or permitting track
 to be used for the conduct of a
 railroad operation that is
 extraterritorially dispatched:
    (a)(1) Generally................             9,500            17,000

    (c) In an emergency situation--              2,500             5,000
     where dispatching railroad
     fails to notify FRA of the
     extraterritorial dispatching...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
  violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
  up to $100,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
  U.S.C. 21301, 21304 and 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.
\2\ The penalty schedule uses section numbers from 49 CFR part 241. If
  more than one item is listed as a type of violation of a given
  section, each item is also designated by a ``penalty code,'' which is
  used to facilitate assessment of civil penalties, and which may or may
  not correspond to any subsection designation(s). For convenience,
  penalty citations will cite the CFR section and the penalty code, if
  any. FRA reserves the right, should litigation become necessary, to
  substitute in its complaint the CFR citation in place of the combined
  CFR and penalty code citation, should they differ.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2010.
Karen J. Rae,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-22141 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56117-56120]
[DOCID:fr02oc07-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56526; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-67]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to XLE Fees

September 25, 2007.
    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 August 31, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
the ``Exchange''), 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 substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On September 20, 2007, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change as amended from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to amend the Exchange's current XLE \5\ Fee Schedule
to: (1) Adopt definitions for Net Makers of liquidity (``Net Makers'')
and Net Takers of liquidity (``Net Taker'') on XLE; (2) update the
current volume tier structure by reducing the volume breakpoints to
create two new volume pricing tiers; (3) amend the amount of the
credits or rebates to Net Makers and the fees for Net Takers; and (4)
make two other minor changes to update the XLE Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ XLE refers to the Exchange's equity trading system. XLE is
designed to provide the opportunity for entirely automated
executions to occur within a central matching system accessible by
Exchange members and member organizations and their Sponsored
Participants. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54538
(September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-
43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees will be assessed on Exchange members or member
organizations, which may include Sponsoring Member Organizations \6\
(collectively ``member organizations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rules 1(jj) and 1(kk) (defining ``Sponsored
Participant'' and ``Sponsoring Member Organization'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes set forth in this proposal are scheduled to become
operative beginning with transactions settling on or after September 4,
2007.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Phlx 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. Phlx 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
    In an effort to enhance liquidity on XLE, the Exchange proposes to
amend the XLE fee schedule to provide economic incentives to help
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The proposed amendments
to the XLE Fee Schedule are discussed in detail below:
i. Adopt Definitions for Net Makers and Net Takers
    An XLE Participant Organization \7\ would qualify as a Net Maker if
the total volume from providing liquidity for that XLE Participant
Organization is at least one share greater than the total volume from
removing liquidity during a single

billing period.\8\ Additionally, if in one month the total volume from
providing liquidity is equivalent to the total volume from removing
liquidity, the XLE Participant Organization would be considered a Net
Maker for purposes of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of this fee proposal, an XLE Participant
Organization refers to Sponsored Participants, Sponsoring Member
Organizations, and member organizations without Sponsored
participants. See Exchange Rules 1(jj) and 1(kk). Sponsoring Member
Organizations are responsible for the fees generated by their
Sponsored Participant(s).
    \8\ Currently, the Exchange assesses fees on a monthly calendar
basis based on the settlement date of the transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, for the month of August, if an XLE Participant
Organization's total volume from providing liquidity is 2 million
shares executed and for that same month that XLE Participant
Organization's total volume from removing liquidity was 1.5 million
shares executed (total executed volume is therefore 3.5 million shares)
that XLE Participant Organization would qualify as a Net Maker for that
same month.
    Conversely, an XLE Participant Organization would qualify as a Net
Taker if the total volume from removing liquidity for that XLE
Participant Organization is at least one share greater than the total
volume from providing liquidity during a single billing period. For
example, for the month of August, if an XLE Participant Organization's
total volume from removing liquidity is 3 million shares executed and
for that same month, that XLE Participant Organization's total volume
from providing liquidity was 2 million shares executed, that XLE
Participant Organization would qualify as a Net Taker for that same
month.
    Volume would be calculated based on volume generated from Maker
(providing liquidity) or Taker (removing liquidity) executions, and
volume from single-sided odd lot orders \9\ executed on XLE against an
XLE Participant.\10\ Volume from the following transactions would not
be included in determining Net Maker and Net Taker volumes: Immediate
or Cancel (``IOC'') Cross \11\ and Mid-Point Cross Orders \12\ entered
over technology provided by Phlx,\13\ including odd lot IOC Cross and
Mid-Point Cross Orders; all other IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders,
including all other odd lot IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders;
Single-sided odd lot orders executed at an away market; and volume from
Routed Away Orders, referred to on the XLE Fee Schedule as ``Fee for
Routing Liquidity (Per Share Executed).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An odd lot order means an order for less than a round lot,
which is defined for purposes of XLE as a unit of trading that is
100 shares. See Exchange Rules 1(w) and 1(gg).
    \10\ All odd lot transactions refer to those orders that are
initially entered as odd lot orders. Fees for these types of
transactions are set forth on the Exchange's XLE fee schedule under
the heading Miscellaneous Transaction fees.
    \11\ See Exchange Rules 185(c) and 185(c)(2).
    \12\ See Exchange Rules 185(c) and 185(c)(1).
    \13\ Phlx provides optional technology to XLE Participants for
the entry of two-sided orders into XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with current practice, the Net Maker or Net Taker
calculation will be determined separately per XLE Participant
Organization. Volume generated from a Sponsored Participant's
executions will accrete towards that Sponsored Participant's volume to
determine whether Maker or Taker fees will be assessed, and not towards
the Sponsoring Member Organization's volume. Once an XLE Participant
Organization has been designated as a Maker or Taker for a specific
month, all transactions that month would be subject to the fee that
corresponds with whether the XLE Participant Organization is a Maker or
Taker.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Securities executed on XLE with a per share price below
$1.00 that remove liquidity, will continue to be charged 0.1% (i.e.,
10 basis points) of total dollar value of the transaction.
Consistent with current practice, there would be no credit for
providing liquidity for shares with a per share price below $1.00.
Executed volume in such shares will accrete towards the volume tier
breakpoint (discussed below) and Maker/Taker category per XLE
Participant Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Update the Current Volume Tier Structure by Reducing the Volume
Breakpoints To Create Two New Volume Pricing Tiers
    The Exchange also proposes to change the aggregate volume
calculations and lower the current volume-based breakpoints to entice
XLE Participant Organizations to generate additional trading activity.
    Currently, there are four volume tiers based on monthly shares
executed. The total of monthly executed shares includes executions
resulting from removing and providing liquidity on XLE and crosses
executed on XLE, as well as shares executed when routed via XLE to an
away trading center and executed on that away trading center. The
existing fee schedule established four volume breakpoints based on the
aggregate monthly shares executed with the last two tiers set at
``greater than 50 million and less than or equal to 200 million shares
executed'' in one month and ``greater than 200 million shares,''
respectively. These levels have proven to be difficult for XLE
Participant Organizations to reach. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
lower the volumes used in the volume-based tiers and to change the
volume calculation from a monthly one to one based on average daily
volume.
    The proposed two volume tiers would be as follows: Tier One would
be comprised of volume of less than one million shares executed
(average daily volume) and Tier Two would be comprised of volume of
greater than or equal to one million shares executed (average daily
volume). The proposed volume tiers would be determined by calculating
the average daily volume of total shares executed (volume from
providing liquidity and the volume from removing liquidity) during the
applicable billing period. Consistent with calculating volume levels
for Net Maker/Net Taker activity, the tier volume is calculated based
on volume generated from Maker/Taker executions and volume from single-
sided odd lot orders executed on XLE against an XLE Participant.
    To calculate the average daily shares executed, the total number of
executed shares (comprised of liquidity provided, liquidity removed,
and single-sided odd lot orders executed on XLE against an XLE
Participant during the applicable billing period) would be divided by
the number of trading days during the applicable billing period. For
example, for a billing period with 20 trading days, if an XLE
Participant Organization executed 23 million shares (comprised of 15
million executed shares from providing liquidity and 8 million shares
from removing liquidity), the average daily volume is calculated by
adding the liquidity provided (15 million executed shares), to the
liquidity removed (8 million executed shares), which totals 23 million
shares, and then dividing by 20 days (or applicable trading days in the
month), which equals 1,150,000 average daily shares executed.
    Due to the lower volume tier breakpoint, the following transactions
would not be included in determining the applicable volume tier
breakpoints: \15\ IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders entered over
technology provided by Phlx, including odd lot IOC Cross and Mid-Point
Cross Orders; all other IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders, including
all other odd lot IOC Cross and Mid-Point Cross Orders; Single-sided
odd lot orders executed at an away market; and volume from Routed Away
Orders, referred to on the XLE Fee Schedule as ``Fee for Routing
Liquidity (Per Share Executed).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These are the same requirements for determining Net Maker
and Net Taker volumes. All volume calculations would be based
settlement dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with current practice, the total monthly shares will be
calculated separately per XLE Participant Organization. Sponsored
Participant executions will accrete towards that Sponsored
Participant's volume tier and not towards the Sponsoring Member

Organization's volume tier. Once a specific tier has been reached in a
month, all transactions for that month would be subject to the fee that
corresponds with that volume tier.
iii. Amend the Amount of the Credits or Rebates to Net Makers and the
Fees for Net Takers
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Net Maker credits or rebates
and Net Taker fees in an effort to balance the need to offer liquidity
Makers sufficient economic incentives to participate on XLE (in the
form of competitive ``Maker'' credit) and the need to earn sufficient
transaction revenue from a business standpoint (in the form of
liquidity taking fees). The Exchange proposes to adopt the following
fees: (1) For less than one million shares executed (average daily
volume), the Net Maker fee for removing liquidity would be $0.0030 per
share executed and the credit for providing liquidity would be $0.0025
per share executed; the Net Taker fee for removing liquidity would be
$0.0030 per share executed and the credit for providing liquidity would
be $0.0022 per share executed; (2) for greater than or equal to one
million shares executed (average daily volume), the Net Maker fee for
removing liquidity would be $0.0024 per share executed and the credit
for providing liquidity would be $0.0028 per share executed; the Net
Taker fee for removing liquidity would be $0.0026 per share executed
and the credit for providing liquidity would be $0.0024 per share
executed.
    Consistent with current practice, the dollar value of the Net Maker
credits would appear on the member organization's monthly invoice. The
dollar amount of the excess credits would continue to be carried over
into subsequent months or rebated to the applicable member organization
as requested by the member organization.
    The purpose of this proposal is to attract more business by
enticing Net Makers to the Exchange and by creating financial
incentives to XLE Participant Organizations to encourage them to send
additional order flow to the Exchange. The economics of the proposed
fee schedule are focused around creating financial incentives to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange while managing the risk
associated with those financial incentives. The proposed changes to the
XLE Fee Schedule are intended to stimulate liquidity and generate a
reasonable return.
iv. Additional Changes to the XLE Fee Schedule
    The Exchange also proposes to make the following two minor changes
to the XLE fee Schedule: (1) Under Miscellaneous Fees for ``Execution
Fee for Single-Sided Odd Lot Orders executed on XLE against another XLE
Participant,'' the Exchange proposes to change the word ``another'' to
``an'' to clarify that the same XLE Participant could be on both sides
of the transaction; and (2) delete the reference to Monthly Drop Copy
Feed Fee.\16\ Although there is no charge for this service, at this
time the Exchange is not providing a Monthly Drop Copy Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Drop Copy Feed refers to real-time information
concerning trades executed by an XLE Participant Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the two minor changes is to clarify and update the
XLE fee schedule to more accurately reflect the XLE fees being charged
by the Exchange.
    The changes set forth in this proposal are scheduled to become
operative beginning with transactions settling on or after September 4,
2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \17\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \18\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
this proposal is equitable and reasonable in that it is designed to
create financial incentives for all XLE Participant Organizations to
encourage them to send additional order flow to the Exchange. This
additional order flow should, in turn, stimulate additional transaction
volume and liquidity at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is subject to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \19\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \20\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \21\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within the
Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on September 20, 2007, the date on which Phlx filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-67 on the subject line.
    Paper comments:
     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-67. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Phlx. 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-Phlx-2007-67 and should be submitted on or before October 23, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19404 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


There may be other useful mechanisms for monitoring pesticide use and the safe disposal of unneeded or unwanted pesticides, including surveys of farmers/ commercial landscapers/ homeowners, point of sale surveys, residential use surveys, commercial applicator tallies, collections during " Clean Sweep" programs, or household hazardous waste collection programs and events, or resolutions passed ( or equivalent) by state or local government to eliminate or reduce pesticide usage. These other mechanisms must be more fully developed by the Peconic Estuary Program.

Costs Base Program: Reporting costs under the State Pesticide Reporting Law are borne by regulated entities. New Costs: The cost and details of the other potential monitoring mechanisms has not been fully developed at this point by the Peconic Estuary Program. A preliminary estimate for compiling, evaluating and interpreting data is $ 25,000 annually.

Two Stroke Marine Engine Inventory Program Objective To monitor the progress of conversion/ replacement from 2 stroke to 4 stroke marine engines in the estuary.

Monitoring Hypotheses Hydrocarbon loadings to the estuary will be reduced as the number of 2 stroke marine engines used in the estuary is reduced.

CCMP Measurable Goal Reduce the number of 2 stroke marine engines in use in the estuary.

Lead Entity ( proposed) Peconic Estuary Program Office Program Status New proposed program Monitoring Extent and Frequency Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X I  45  Program Description Federal requirements require the manufacturers of marine engines to phase in cleaner burning 4 stroke engines. The progress of the conversion from 2 stroke to 4 stroke marine engines takes place in the estuary can be monitored. If the pace of conversion/ replacement appears slow, the PEP may establish or recommend incentives to speed the conversion. A potential monitoring mechanism is harbormaster conducted surveys. The costs or details of the potential monitoring mechanism have not been fully developed at this point by the Peconic Estuary Program.

Costs New Costs: The costs or details of this potential monitoring mechanism have not been fully developed at this point by the Peconic Estuary Program. A preliminary estimate is $ 10,000 annually.

Underground Storage Tank Inventory Program Objective To monitor the progress of underground storage tank removal, retirement and replacement.

Monitoring Hypotheses The threats of leaking underground storage tanks will be reduced as the number of tanks exempt from current removal/ replacement retirement requirements in use in the estuary's watershed is reduced.

CCMP Measurable Goal Eliminate underground storage tanks exempt from current replacement requirements.

Lead Entity ( proposed) Peconic Estuary Program Office Program Status New proposed program Monitoring Extent and Frequency Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program watershed.

Program Description No program is currently in place to establish a baseline on the number of tanks currently in use that are exempt from current removal/ replacement/ retirement requirements or to track the number of tanks that are removed, retired and replaced. A potential monitoring mechanism is to establish a baseline and then track the number of underground storage tanks that are removed, retired and replaced.

Costs New Costs: The costs or details of these potential monitoring mechanisms have not been fully developed at this point by the Peconic Estuary Program. Estimate for establishing baseline: $ 50,000; estimate for updating inventory: $ 10,000 per year. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X I  46  Treated Lumber in the Marine Environment Inventory Program Objective To monitor the extent of treated lumber installed in the marine environment.

Monitoring Hypotheses Toxic impacts in the estuary can be reduced by reducing the amount of treated lumber installed in the marine environment.

CCMP Measurable Goal Decrease the cumulative amount of treated lumber installed in the marine/ estuarine environment.

Lead Entity ( proposed) Peconic Estuary Program Office Program Status New proposed program ( in conjunction with shoreline hardening monitoring also described in this Plan)

Monitoring Extent and Frequency Monitoring will be collected annually for the Peconic Estuary Program Study Area Program Description A potential monitoring mechanism would need to include both establishing a baseline on the amount of treated lumber presently installed in the marine environment and updating this baseline to reflect changes due to new installations, replacements, and removals. A portion of this potential mechanism is included in the section of this Plan addressing monitoring for Habitat and Living Resource concerns ( under the heading " Shoreline Hardening"). This proposed monitoring mechanism will need to be expanded to further include information on whether the existing shoreline hardening material is treated lumber.

Costs New Costs: Costs of these potential monitoring mechanisms are included in the Shoreline Hardening discussion of this Environmental Monitoring Plan. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X I  47  Base Programs New Costs Monitoring Program One Time Annual One Time Annual Aquaculture and Transplanting Activities X $ 710,000 $ 5,000 Bay Scallops ( recruitment success and survival dynamics) $ 200,000 ( over three years) Biota ( Fish, Shellfish, Crustacean) Monitoring for Toxics X Brown Tide Research Initiative X Brown Tide Steering Committee X Coastal 2000 X Dredging $ 37,500 $ 7,500 Endangered Species Program X Federal Toxics Release Inventory X Hazardous Waste Site Monitoring X National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Program X NMFS Commercial Landings Program X Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas $ 5,000 NOAA Mussel Watch Program X NYS Pesticide Reporting Law X NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( SPDES) Program X NYS Shellfish Land Certification Program X NYSDEC Juvenile Finfish Survey X $ 645,000 NYSDEC Wetlands Inventory X $ 500,000 $ 50,000 Osprey, Terns and Waterfowl TBD Pesticide Use Monitoring X $ 25,000 Restoration Monitoring $ 35,000 $ 15,000 SCDHS Alexandrium Monitoring X $ 35,000 SCDHS Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools Program X SCDHS Groundwater Monitoring ( for nitrogen and pesticides) X SCDHS North Creeks Study X SCDHS Pfiesteria Monitoring X $ 25,000 SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring X SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring X SCPD Land Use Monitoring X Sediment Monitoring 25,000 Shoreline Hardening Monitoring X 35,000 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring X $ 30,000 Suffolk County Groundwater Model X Surface Water Monitoring for Toxics X Two Stroke Marine Engine Inventory $ 10,000 Underground Storage Tank Inventory $ 50,000 $ 10,000 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory X Total $ 1,332,500 $ 922,500 Monitoring Program Summary Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X I  48  This Page Intentionally Left Blank.


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) >

<EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>>

Petition Number 0F7796

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP # 0F7796, from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540, 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 180.142 to establish  tolerances for residues of 2,4-D
(2,4-D dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined
as the acid in or on the raw agricultural commodities teff, bran at 4.0
parts per million (ppm); teff, forage at 25.0 ppm; teff, grain at 2.0
ppm; and teff, straw at 50.0 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; 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 This petition for teff (a minor crop grain) builds
on the existing registration of 2,4-D for use in wheat.

>

<	1. Plant metabolism. Acceptable wheat, lemon, and potato metabolism
studies have been submitted and reviewed as part of the 2005 EPA RED
(EPA 738-R-05-002).

>

<	2. Analytical method. Per the 2005 EPA RED (EPA 738-R-05-002) page 98,
the 2,4-D Task Force II submitted an adequate GC/ECD enforcement method
for plants (designated as EN-CAS Method No. ENC-2/93) which has been
independently validated.  Adequate radiovalidation data have been
submitted and evaluated for the enforcement method using samples from
the wheat metabolism study.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. IR-4 submitted a proposal to US EPA ChemSAC
to extrapolate to teff from wheat.  Teff and other cereal grains
including corn (sweet and field), rice, sorghum, wheat, barley, pearl
and proso millet, oats, popcorn, rye, teosinte, and triticale have
similar morphological, cultural practices, taxonomical characteristics,
and share similar pest problems.  Teff is scheduled for inclusion in the
revised Cereal Grains Crop Group 15 to be proposed by IR-4 and the
International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee.  IR-4 proposed that
the 2,4-D tolerances for teff be based on the existing residue
tolerances for 2,4-D (40 CFR 180.142) on wheat, barley, oats, rye, and
millet.  US EPA ChemSAC in a meeting on October 29, 2008 agreed with the
proposal, considering the low acreage of teff grown in the US and the
similarity to other cereal grains.>

<B. Toxicological Profile Per the 2005 RED (EPA 738-R-05-002), the EPA
stated that with very few exceptions, the effects and relative
toxicities of the salt and ester forms of 2,4-D are quite similar to
those of the acid form. Thus, the acid form was selected as being
representative of all members of the 2,4-D reregistration case. The
toxicological profile was reviewed and selected endpoints for 2,4-D were
previously published in the Federal Register of July 27, 2005 (Vol. 70,
Number 143, 43302), per Table 2.  At that time, the EPA determined that
the “toxicological database is sufficient for reregistration” but
included a 10X database uncertainty factor in lieu of a DNT study.  The
toxicity database is now augmented by a new F1-extended one generation
dietary toxicity study in rats (MRID 47972101) which was recently
submitted by the 2,4-D task force and is currently under review at the
EPA.  It is anticipated that the data base UF will be reduced in the
future based on the new study.>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  Per Table 2 of Federal Register of July 27, 2005
(Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302), EPA has established acute endpoints from
two different studies.  For the general population including infants and
children, the NOAEL of 67 mg/kg/day from the acute neurotoxicity study
in rats is currently used in conjunction with a 1,000 X UF to arrive at
an aRfD = aPAD of 0.067 mg/kg/day.  For females 13-50 years of age the
NOAEL of 25 mg/kd/day from the rat developmental toxicity study is
currently used with a UF of 1000 to establish an aRfD = aPAD of 0.025
mg/kg/day for this subpopulation.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. Per the 2005 RED (EPA 738-R-05-002), based on the
overall pattern of responses observed in both in vitro and in vivo
genotoxicity tests, 2,4-D was not mutagenic, although some cytogenic
effects were observed. Per Table 1 of Federal Register of July 27, 2005
(Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302), several genotoxicity studies have been
conducted.  In the Ames tests, no evidence of bacterial mutation in S
typhimurium. strains TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA98, TA100, with and
without S9 were observed.  No significant increase in bone marrow
polychromatic erythrocytes were found in the in vivo erythrocyte
micro-nucleus assay.  No evidence of increased chromosome aberrations in
human lymphocytes in the in vitro chromosome aberration study with human
lymphocytes.  Equivocal results (+ at top 2 doses, with results similar
to dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO control) were noted in the cytogenetics in
vivo chromosome aberration study with rat bone marrow. No evidence of
induction of unscheduled DNA synthesis has been noted. 2,4-D is
considered “Not likely to pose a cancer risk” based on the lack of
carcinogenicity in a rat carcinogenicity study and a mouse
carcinogenicity study.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Per the 2005 RED (EPA
738-R-05-002), the toxicity database for 2,4-D includes acceptable
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for use in risk
assessment.  However, the recently submitted F1-extended one generation
dietary toxicity study in rats (MRID 47972101) provides a new and
detailed evaluation of the potential effects of
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) on the reproductive function, as
well as potential effects on numerous endpoints in the first generation
offspring, including survival, growth and the development of nervous,
immune and reproductive systems.  Across life stages, the 2,4-D extended
one generation study has established a no-observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) based on systemic toxicity of 100 ppm in males (5.5 mg/kg/day)
and 300 ppm in females (20.6 mg/kg/day in non-pregnant P1 adults).

Regarding reproductive effects, there was no indication of reproductive
toxicity by 2,4-D in the new study. 2,4-D had no effects on estrous
cyclicity or reproductive indices, including mating, fertility, time to
mating, gestation length, pre- and post-implantation loss and
corporalutea number. Litter sizes, pup survival, sperm parameters,
ovarian follicle counts and reproductive organ histopathology were
unaffected by 2,4-D.  Pup growth was affected during lactation, but only
at a dose causing parental toxicity and resulting in nonlinear renal
clearance. Overall, 2,4-D is not a reproductive toxin.

There was no evidence of developmental neurotoxicity related to 2,4-D
exposure. There were no exposure-related effects on brain histopathology
at any age. Functional observational battery (FOB) parameters (hand-held
and open-field observations, grip performance, landing foot splay,
rectal temperature), motor activity and acoustic startle response (ASR)
were assessed in these animals on post natal date (PND) 54-59. The
offspring adults were perfused for central and peripheral nervous system
neuropathology. In addition, brain weights, gross brain measurements and
morphometric measurements were evaluated. There were no exposure-related
effects on FOB parameters, motor activity or ASR. Habituation
(behavioral response to a stimulus) was not affected at any dose of
2,4-D. Gross and morphometric brain measurements also were not affected.
There was no exposure-related neuropathology in PND 22 or 60 animals,
including no effects on brain myelin (assessed by special staining).
Thus 2,4-D exposure shows no evidence of DNT.>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. Per Table 2 of Federal Register of July 27,
2005 (Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302), the short-term incidental oral and a
short-term dermal endpoints are currently established based on the rat
developmental toxicity NOAEL = 25 mg/day with an associated LOAEL of 75
based on decreased maternal body-weight gain and skeletal abnormalities.
 The intermediate-term incidental oral and dermal endpoints are
established based on the subchronic rat oral toxicity NOAEL of 15
mg/kg/day with an associated LOAEL = 1000 mg/kd/day based on decreased
body weight/body-weight gain, alterations in some hematology (decreased
platelets (both sexes)) and clinical chemistry (decreased T3 (females)
and T4 (both sexes)) parameters, and cataract formation.  The LOC for
Residential MOEs is 1000.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. In the rat chronic toxicity study, a LOAEL of 75
mg/kg/day was observed based on decreased body-weight gain (females) and
food consumption(females), alterations in hematology(decreased RBC, HCT,
and HGB (females),platelets (both sexes)) and clinical chemistry
parameters (increased creatinine (both sexes), alanine and aspartate
aminotransferases (males), alkaline phosphatase (both sexes), decreased
T4 (both sexes), glucose (females), cholesterol (both sexes), and
triglycerides (females).  Per Table 2 of Federal Register of July 27,
2005 (Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302), the NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day from this
study and a UF = 1000, EPA has currently established an cRfD = cPAD =
0.005 mg/kg/day for all populations.  This NOAEL is also used for the
long-term inhalation and dermal endpoints with a “LOC for MOE” of
1000.

>

<	6. Animal metabolism. The absorption, distribution, metabolism and
excretion of 2,4-D has been studies in rats.  Per Table 1 of Federal
Register of July 27, 2005 (Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302), 2,4-D
elimination (85.5%-93.7%) is primarily via urine with 3.6%-10.5% of dose
eliminated via the feces. At the high-dose level, it appears that a
nonlinear region (decreased clearance) is being reached in the
disposition of 2,4-D. Parent 2,4-D was the major metabolite found in
urine (72.9%-90.5% of the oral dose), with small amounts of
uncharacterized compounds (0.6%-1.3% and 0%-0.7%) being found in the
urine.

Per the 2005 RED (EPA 738-R-05-002), EPA has noted that the mechanisms
responsible for renal clearance of 2,4-D have been investigated in
several species.  2,4-D is actively secreted by the proximal tubules.
This mechanism of renal clearance is consistent with results seen with
other phenoxy acids. It has been suggested that observed dose dependent,
non-linear, pharmacokinetics of 2,4-D are primarily due to the
saturation of this renal secretory transport system. Due to a limited
capacity to excrete organic acids, the dog is more sensitive to the
effects of 2,4-D than the rat with respect to repeated dosing.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. 2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP) is a known
plant and animal metabolite is 2,4-D.  However, per the EPA RED (EPA
738-R-05-002), EPA has concluded that 2,4-D alone is the residue of
concern.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. The recently submitted F1-extended one
generation dietary toxicity study in rats (MRID 47972101) included
numerous endpoints to assess for endocrine effects. Endocrine-sensitive
endpoints included estrous cyclicity, reproductive indices, organ
weights/pathology, and sperm parameters. Anogenital distance, nipple
retention, and puberty onset were assessed in offspring; quantitative
ovarian follicle counts in a subset of offspring.  2,4-D did not alter
estrogen- or androgen-sensitive endpoints. There were no effects on
estrogen-sensitive endpoints including vaginal opening, estrous
cyclicity, uterine weights or histopathology, or quantitative ovarian
follicle counts. There were no significant, exposure-related changes in
reproductive organ weights in offspring. Other androgen-sensitive
endpoints, including anogenital distance (AGD) and nipple retention,
which are considered very sensitive endpoints, sperm parameters and
testicular and accessory sex gland histopathology, were not altered.
Based on this data and other studies, 2,4-D shows no evidence of being
an endocrine disruptor interacting with either estrogen or androgen at
doses at or below those resulting in nonlinear renal clearance.

There were no thyroid effects at low and mid dose levels and no
biologically significant effects on thyroid endpoints at all life stages
examined. There were no adverse pathological alterations, thus, slight
thyroid changes seen in a satellite group of pregnant females were
considered adaptive, non-adverse responses. The only altered thyroid
endpoints occurred at an exposure level that clearly resulted in
nonlinear renal clearance.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure This proposal is based on bridging uses and
tolerances from wheat to teff.  Wheat use is covered by the exposure
assessments within the EPA 2005 RED.  The proposed additional use of
2,4-D on teff would not have changed the results of those assessments.>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Tolerances for: Wheat, bran at 4.0 ppm, Wheat,
forage at 25 ppm Wheat, grain at 2.0 ppm are included in the EPA Final
Rule (72 52017, Sept. 12, 2007).  The exposure assessment supporting
these tolerances values is found in the 2005 RED.  The existing exposure
assessment for wheat is sufficient to cover any teff exposure, because
the exposure from the proposed use on teff is already covered by the
existing EPA dietary assessment for small grains.  If the consumer
switches to consumption of teff in place of traditional grains, the
dietary exposure assessment is unchanged, hence the information from the
2005 RED is reiterated below.

>

<	i. Food. Per the 2005 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D
(EPA738-R-05-002) regarding acute food, exposure estimates to the
general U.S. population were 18% and 17% of the aPAD using both DEEM and
Lifeline, respectively.  The most highly exposed population subgroup
using both DEEM and Lifeline was children 1-2 years of age; exposures
were 33% and 32% of the aPAD, respectively.  Calculated exposure to
females 13-49 years of age was 31% of the aPAD using DEEM and 42% of the
aPAD using Lifeline; these higher calculated percentages for women of
child-bearing age are due to the 2.7x lower toxicological point of
departure for developmental effects applicable to Females 13-49 years of
age.  These acute dietary (food) exposure estimates are all less than
the Agency’s level of concern (100% of aPAD).

For chronic exposure the EPA RED concludes that exposures to the general
U.S. population were 4.1% and 3.8% of the cPAD, using DEEM and Lifeline,
respectively.  Calculated food exposures to children 1-2 years of age,
the most highly exposed population subgroup, was 8.5% of the cPAD using
DEEM and Lifeline.>

<	ii. Drinking water. Drinking water estimates were included in the
previous DEEM model estimates listed in Federal Register of July 27,
2005 (Vol. 70, Number 143, page 43307).  The resulting exposure
estimates were 10% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, 24% of the cPAD
for all Infants (< 1 year old), and 18% of the cPAD for children 1–2
years old.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. Per Federal Register of July 27, 2005 (Vol.
70, Number 143, 43302), there are no residential uses for 2,4-D that
result in chronic residential exposure to2,4-D. 2,4-D is currently
registered for uses that could result in short-term residential
exposure.  Short-term turf exposures were calculated only for females
13–49 and children 1–6, because these population subgroups have the
highest exposure and are protective of the other subgroups. EPA
published potential turf exposure values of 0.024 mg/kg/day for females
and 0.021 mg/kg/day for children 1-6, respectively.

>

<D. Cumulative Effects. For the purposes of this tolerance action, it is
not assumed that 2,4-D has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. Per the Federal Register of July 27, 2005 (Vol.
70, Number 143, 43302) aggregate risk assessments for the general
population were conservatively covered by calculations for females
13–49 and children 1–6, because these population subgroups have the
highest exposure and are protective of the other subgroups. EPA
determined, the short-term aggregate MOEs which include turf exposure
are not of concern because the MOEs equal or exceed the target MOE of
1,000.

>

<	2. Infants and children. In the Federal Register of July 27, 2005
(Vol. 70, Number 143, 43302) and after evaluating hazard and exposure
data for 2,4-D, EPA removed the default 10X FQPA safety factor, but
retained a database uncertainty factor (UFDB) of 10X in lieu of a
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study in rats for 2,4-D.  This FQPA
decision was based on the existing toxicity database for 2,4-D at that
time which includes acceptable developmental and reproductive toxicity
studies.  The new extended F1-generation study in rats is anticipated to
result in the removal of the 10X UFDB in the future.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are no known tolerances specifically for teff elsewhere in the
world.  According to Homologa (  HYPERLINK "http://www.homologa.com"
www.homologa.com ), there are many international MRLs established for
wheat: Argentina, Australia and Brazil have established 0.2 ppm, Japan
and Mexico list 0.5 ppm, CODEX and the US list 2 ppm and the EU, Russian
Federation and Switzerland list 0.05 ppm.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83941-83942]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26534]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0061; FRL-10581-14-OCSPP]

Significant New Use Notices (SN-23-0002 Through 0006 and SN-23-
0008 Through 0011); Extension of Review Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the extension of the review periods
for significant new use notices (SNUNs) identified as SN-23-0002
through 0006 and SN-23-0008 through 0011 submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA has determined that an extension of the statutory 90-day review
periods for these SNUNs is necessary to allow the Agency to complete
the required analysis under TSCA, investigate potential risk, examine
regulatory options, and prepare the necessary documents should the
Agency determine that further regulatory action is required.

DATES: The review periods are extended to February 28, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Jim Alwood, Acting Chief, Risk
Management Branch 1, New Chemicals Division (7405), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the chemical manufacturing company that
submitted the SNUNs. This action may also be of interest to persons
concerned about health, environmental, and/or economic aspects of the
significant new uses of the chemical substances. Since other entities
may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all
the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I access the docket?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0061, is available online at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

C. What is EPA's authority for this action?

    TSCA section 5(c), 15 U.S.C. 2604(c), and 40 CFR 720.75(c)
authorize EPA to extend, for good cause, the 90-day SNUN review period
for additional periods of time not to exceed in the aggregate 90 days.
Examples of circumstances in which EPA may find good cause to extend
the review period include, but are not limited to, EPA's request for
additional information relating to a notice during the notice review
period, EPA's receipt of additional information relating to a notice
during the notice review period, and EPA's determination that there is
a significant possibility that a significant new use of a chemical will
be regulated under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f) and additional time is
required for EPA to initiate the appropriate regulatory action.

D. What action is the Agency taking?

    For the SNUNs identified in Unit II., EPA finds that there is good
cause to extend the SNUN review periods. Based on the Agency's analysis
to date, EPA has determined that extensions of the SNUN review periods
are necessary to further investigate potential risk, examine regulatory
options, and prepare the necessary documents, should regulatory action
be required for the significant new uses of the chemical substances.
Specifically, EPA received additional information and amendments to all
nine of the notices during the review periods which required additional
time for EPA to review and include in the assessment in order to
determine and initiate the appropriate regulatory action.

II. What notices are subject to this extension?

    On December 30, 2022, EPA received SNUNs SN-23-0002 through 0006
and SN-23-0008 through 0011 for significant new uses of the following
existing chemical substances:
     Octanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-
pentadecafluoro- (CASRN 335-67-1, SN-23-0002),
     Dodecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-tricosafluoro-
(CASRN 307-55-1, SN-23-0003),
     Nonanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9-
heptadecafluoro- (CASRN 375-95-1, SN-23-0004),
     Decanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10-
nonadecafluoro- (CASRN 335-76-2, SN-23-0005),
     Undecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,11-heneicosafluoro- (CASRN
2058-94-8, SN-23-0006),
     Tetradecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14-
heptacosafluoro- (CASRN 376-06-7, SN-23-0008),
     Tridecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,13-
pentacosafluoro- (CASRN 72629-94-8, SN-23-0009),
     Hexadecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,1
6,16-hentriacontafluoro- (CASRN 67905-19-5, SN-23-0010), and
     Octadecanoic acid,
2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,1
6,17,17,18,18,18-pentatriacontafluoro- (CASRN 16517-11-6, SN-23-0011).

    The submitter claimed specific use information, process
information, and other information to be CBI.
    The notice of receipt for these SNUNs published in the Federal
Register of February 17, 2023 (88 FR 10320) (FRL-10581-01-OCSPP). The
SNUN review periods that were voluntarily suspended by the SNUN
submitter with EPA's agreement would have expired on November 30, 2023.
With this notice, the review periods are being extended to February 28,
2024.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 28, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-26534 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44198]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0686; FRL-8828-3]
RIN 2070-AB27

Proposed Significant New Use Rule for Multi-walled Carbon
Nanotubes; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of February
3, 2010, concerning a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) for the
chemical substance identified generically as multi-walled carbon
nanotubes (P-08-199). In order to address public comments, EPA is
adding information to the docket and reopening the comment period. This
document reopens the comment period for 30 days.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2009-0686, must be received on or before August 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of February 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document reopens the public comment
period established in the Federal Register of February 3, 2010 (75 FR
5546) (FRL-8796-7). In that document, EPA proposed a SNUR for the
chemical substance identified generically as multi-walled carbon
nanotubes as identified in Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-08-199. EPA
received several comments in response to the proposed SNUR. EPA will
address those comments when it issues the final SNUR. One commenter
noted that neither the proposed rule nor the docket contained specific
carbon nanotube data or data supporting the nature of the dermal
concern for carbon nanotubes. That commenter stated it was not possible
to assess the Agency's evaluation and determination under Sec.
721.170(b)(3)(ii) based on the current record. Another commenter noted
that EPA's subsequent reviews and concerns for carbon nanotubes have
expanded and that the proposed SNUR should reflect those updated data.
EPA has added additional explanation and references of its health and
environmental concerns for carbon nanotubes to the public docket for
consideration. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 30 days
to allow for any public comments in response to this additional data.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the February 3,
2010 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 15, 2010.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2010-18543; Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10207-10208]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0127]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated December 17, 2014, Keolis Commuter Services (KRSM), a contracted
commuter railroad operator for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
a waiver of compliance from several provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations. Specifically, KRSM requests relief from certain
provisions of 49 CFR part 240, Qualification and Certification of
Locomotive Engineers, and Part 242, Qualification and Certification of

Conductors. The request was assigned Docket Number FRA-2014-0127. The
relief is contingent on KRSM's implementation of and participation in
the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS) pilot project.
    KRSM seeks to shield reporting employees and the railroad from
mandatory punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as provided in
49 CFR 240.117(e)(1)-(4); 240.305(a)(1)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; and
242.403(b), (c), (e)(1)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), (f)(1)-(2). The C\3\RS pilot
project encourages certified operating crew members to report close
calls and protects the employees and the railroad from discipline or
sanctions arising from the incidents reported per the C\3\RS
Implementing Memorandum of Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within April 13, 2015 of the date of this
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-03768 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52093-52094]
[DOCID:fr12se07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-83-000]

Electric Transmission Texas, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2007, Electric Transmission Texas,
LLC, tendered for filing a supplement to it July 19, 2007 filing, to
respond to informal inquiries from the Commission's advisory staff
concerning the AEP Texas Central Company's Laredo interconnection with
CFE.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 18, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17968 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37112-37115]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97627; File No. SR-BX-2023-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees
for Field-Programmable Gate Array Technology as an Optional Delivery
Mechanism for BX TotalView

May 31, 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 May 23, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to set fees for the purchase of field-
programmable gate array (``FPGA'') technology as an

optional delivery mechanism for BX TotalView.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a fee
schedule for the purchase of field-programmable gate array (``FPGA'')
technology as an optional delivery mechanism for BX TotalView. This
follows a recently-filed proposal to offer FPGA technology as an
optional delivery mechanism for BX TotalView.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-BX-2023-011 (``A proposal to offer field-programmable
gate array (`FPGA') technology as an optional delivery mechanism for
BX TotalView.''), available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/BX/rulefilings. A proposal to establish a fee schedule for
the use of FPGA technology for the Phlx exchange is being filed
concurrently with this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FPGA
    FPGA is a hardware-based delivery mechanism that utilizes an
integrated circuit that is programmed to reduce ``jitter''--a technical
term of art referring to the deviation in amplitude, phase timing or
width of a signal pulse in a digital signal--that will allow data to be
processed in a more predictable, or ``deterministic,'' fashion. Higher
levels of determinism means less variable queuing, which improves the
predictability of data transfer, particularly during times of peak
market activity.
    The benefits of determinism depend on the use case of the
customer--in general, customers that process larger amounts of data at
higher frequencies seek a greater degree of determinism--as well as the
specific system architecture used by the customer.
    Among customers that seek a higher degree of determinism, the
benefits of FPGA technology varies, as FPGA technology is one possible
solution, among a catalog of possible solutions, for increasing the
consistency and predictability of message throughput over the course of
the trading day. Some customers are able to adequately control jitter
without using FPGA technology; other customers address jitter using
specialized software, coding or other design solutions in conjunction
with FPGA; still others use FPGA alone. The specific choice depends on
a complex analysis of the customer's information technology systems in
the context of their particular use cases.
    FPGA is a broadly-available, commonly-used type of programmable
circuit that can be modified to suit different use cases. It is used in
a wide spectrum of industries, including the consumer electronics,
automotive, and aerospace, as well as in a variety of industrial
applications. It is not unique to the financial services industry,\4\
or to Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Contrive Datum Insights, ``Field-Programmable
Gate Array (FPGA) Market is expected to reach around USD 22.10
Billion by 2030, Grow at a CAGR of 15.12% during Forecast Period
2023 to 2030,'' (February 21, 2023), available at https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2023/02/21/2612772/0/en/Field-Programmable-Gate-Array-FPGA-Market-Is-Expected-To-Reach-around-USD-22-10-Billion-by-2030-Grow-at-a-CAGR-Of-15-12-during-Forecast-Period-2023-To-2030-Data-By-Contrive-Datum-I.html (describing the
general size and state of the FPGA market in 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FPGA technology has been offered by the Nasdaq Stock Exchange for
over a decade, and the Nasdaq Options Market for nearly as long,\5\ and
has been cited by the SEC as an example of a technology useful in the
distribution of market data products.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67297 (June 28,
2012), 77 FR 39752 (July 5, 2012) (SR-Nasdaq-2012-063) (introducing
FPGA technology); see also Nasdaq Data News 2012-13, available at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=dn2012-13
(introducing TotalView FPGA service as of August 1, 2012);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74745 (April 16, 2015), 80 FR
22588 (April 22, 2015) (SR-Nasdaq-2015-035) (establishing FPGA for
the Nasdaq Options Market); The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rules,
Equity 7, Section 126(c) (Hardware-Based Delivery of Nasdaq Depth
data).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90610, 86 FR 18596,
18647 (April 9, 2021) (File No. S7-03-20) (listing field
programmable gate array services as an example of a technological
innovation that could be employed by competing consolidators as part
of the Market Data Infrastructure rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer FPGA technology in conjunction with
the Exchange's depth of book feed, BX TotalView. BX TotalView is a
real-time market data product that provides full order depth using a
series of order messages to track the life of customer orders in the BX
market, as well as trade data for BX executions and administrative
messages such as Trading Action messages, Symbol Directory, and Event
Control messages.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq BX, Inc. Rules, Equity 7, Section 123 (BX
TotalView); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59307
(January 28, 2009), 74 FR 6069 (February 4, 2009) (establishing fees
for BX TotalView).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Fees
    BX proposes internal distribution fees of $3,500 per month and
external distribution fees of $350 for FPGA hardware; customers that
elect to use FPGA hardware for both internal and external distribution
will pay both fees.\8\ These fees are in addition to Market Data
Distributor Fees,\9\ fees for BX TotalView,\10\ and other fees for
Distribution Models.\11\ Customers that elect to receive BX depth of
book data without using FPGA technology will pay no fee in addition to
the underlying fees listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The difference in amount for external and external
distribution reflects Nasdaq's experience that the Exchange's FPGA
hardware is best employed at the point of ingestion, as the utility
of FPGA technology falls as the data moves farther from the source.
    \9\ See Nasdaq BX, Inc. Rules, Equity 7, Section 119.
    \10\ See Id., Section 123.
    \11\ See Id., Section 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are substantially lower than FPGA fees for the
Nasdaq exchange, which are set at $25,000 per Distributor for internal
only distribution, $2,500 for external only, and $27,500 for internal
and external distribution.\12\ The difference is based, in part, on a
comparison of peak activity at the two exchanges. As noted above, high
levels of determinism are particularly valuable during periods of peak
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rules, Equity 7 (Pricing
Schedule), Section 126(c) (Hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq depth
data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there is considerable variation in the number of messages
at various peaks, as well as the duration of peak activity, the
proposed fees are roughly comparable to the differences in average peak
activity at the BX exchange relative to the Nasdaq exchange. Exchange
staff have also discussed the proposed fees with customers, and
believe, based on those discussions and their own business judgment,
that the proposed fees fairly reflect the value of FPGA technology for
the BX exchange. A number of customers provisionally agree with this
assessment, and have indicated that they are interested in testing it.

    No other exchange currently offers FPGA technology as a separate
service in conjunction with the delivery of a proprietary data feed,
and therefore there are no other fees for comparison. If BX is
incorrect in its determination that the proposed fees reflect the
underlying value of FPGA technology, customers will not purchase the
product. FPGA technology is not necessary for a customer to ingest and
process depth of book information, and those customers that seek a
higher degree of determinism have a number of options at their disposal
to reduce jitter without using FPGA.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the pricing schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which
constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for
order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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' . . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR
74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress directed the Commission to ``rely on `competition,
whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for
overseeing the SROs and the national market system.' '' \17\ As a
result, the Commission has historically relied on competitive forces to
determine whether a fee proposal is equitable, fair, reasonable, and
not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory. ``If competitive forces
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \18\
Accordingly, ``the existence of significant competition provides a
substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \19\ In its 2019 guidance on fee proposals,
Commission staff indicated that they would look at factors beyond the
competitive environment, such as cost, only if a ``proposal lacks
persuasive evidence that the proposed fee is constrained by significant
competitive forces.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534-35; see also H.R. Rep.
No. 94-229 at 92 (1975) (``[I]t is the intent of the conferees that
the national market system evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed.'').
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74,770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ``Staff
Guidance on SRO Rule filings Relating to Fees'' (May 21, 2019),
available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substitutes for FPGA Technology
    No customer is required to purchase FPGA technology for either
legal or technological reasons--even a customer that seeks to reduce
jitter.\21\ Indeed, a majority of Nasdaq depth customers are not
concerned with jitter because they do not process information at
sufficiently high speeds for jitter to become a concern. These
customers can continue to ingest BX TotalView as they do now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Not all customers of depth of book information process at
sufficiently high speeds for jitter to become a concern. Neither
FPGA hardware nor its substitutes are required to ingest depth of
book information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customers searching for greater determinism have an array of
options for optimizing their systems. The benefits of selecting any
particular option depend on a number of factors, including, but not
limited to, the design of the customer's information system
architecture, how its computer code is written, the types of hardware
it uses to process information, and the cost of each option.
    To illustrate the choice faced by exchange customers, consider the
decisions made by the two consolidated data processors, the UTP and CTA
Plans, two different systems that use dissimilar means to achieve an
optimal solution. Both perform the same task--combining quotes and
trades from all U.S. exchanges into a consolidated data feed with
relatively low jitter. Yet only one processor--the CTA Plan--uses FPGA
hardware, while the other--the UTP Plan--does not.
    This is because the UTP Plan's design, coding and hardware achieve
the desired level of determinism without FPGA technology. The CTA Plan,
by contrast, elected to incorporate FPGA technology into its system
design. Notwithstanding these different design decisions, both plans
achieve broadly similar levels of performance. FPGA technology is
therefore not essential to addressing jitter, but rather is one option
among many to address the issue.
    Market data customers face an array of choices to optimize
determinism, much like the UTP and CTA Plans. For example, a customer
may purchase and deploy its own FPGA hardware, without purchasing the
proposed FPGA technology service from the Exchange, after receiving
data from the Exchange. Another customer may find use of the Exchange's
FPGA technology, which lowers the level of jitter prior to the
customer's receipt of the data, to be a better fit for its system
architecture. The solution chosen will vary based on the needs and
design choices of the customer.
    The experience of the Nasdaq exchange in offering FPGA technology
shows that customers sensitive to jitter often avail themselves of
substitutes for FPGA technology, a decision that can change over time.
Over the past decade, a total of 21 current or potential users of FPGA
technology--all of which required high degrees of determinism--
substituted FPGA with an alternative solution. Six of these customers
were in the process of developing and testing FPGA hardware but
ultimately decided not to purchase it before completing this process.
The remaining 15 customers purchased FPGA technology, only to

cancel it after using it. Because all of these customers continued to
utilize the underlying data, these cancelations demonstrate that FPGA
technology is an optional service, even for those customers that seek
to reduce jitter.
    Moreover, as noted above, no other exchange currently offers FPGA
technology in conjunction with their proprietary data feeds as a
separate service, notwithstanding the fact that it is a widely
available technology, providing further evidence that customers have
multiple options at their disposal to address jitter.
    The Exchange is aware of no systematic differences among market
participants that choose to use or not to use FPGA technology. Jitter
is a potential issue for any intensive user of market data, including
banks, high-frequency trading firms, and hedge funds, yet not all of
these customers purchase FPGA technology. The determining factor is not
the type of customer, but rather the compatibility of FPGA technology
with the customer's specific systems architecture and technical
requirements, which can and do change over time as systems are
modified, replaced or updated.
    For all of these reasons, customers can discontinue the use of FPGA
technology at any time, or decide not to purchase it, for any reason,
including the level of fees.
    Customers that choose not to purchase FPGA technology are not
impacted by the proposal.
    The proposed fees will be available to all customers on a non-
discriminatory basis, and therefore are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

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.
    This Proposal, a response to customer demand, is a product of a
competitive marketplace. To date, lower levels of peak activity at the
BX Exchange relative to the Nasdaq exchange have been associated with
low levels of customer interest in this product. Recently, however, BX
has heard from customers interested in using FPGA technology for BX
TotalView. To address this customer demand, and to drive liquidity to
the BX Exchange by making it a more attractive trading venue, BX has
decided to offer this product.
    Approval of this Proposal will further promote competition by
providing market participants additional choices in the transmission of
depth of book data.
    Nothing in the Proposal burdens inter-market competition (the
competition among self-regulatory organizations) because approval of
the Proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other
exchanges to compete. As noted above, FPGA technology is generally
available and any exchange has the ability to offer it if it so
chooses.
    Nothing in the Proposal burdens intra-market competition (the
competition among consumers of exchange data) because FPGA technology
is available to any customer under the same fee schedule as any other
customer, and any market participant that wishes to purchase FPGA
technology can do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2023-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2023-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-BX-2023-014, and should be submitted on
or before June 27, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11922 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P