[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20107-20110]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09574]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83144; File No. SR-ISE-2018-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add Pricing for
P.M. Settled Options on Broad-Based Indexes With Nonstandard Expiration
Dates

May 1, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to
add pricing for P.M. settled options on broad-based indexes with
nonstandard expiration dates, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently received approval to list P.M. settled
options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates on a
twelve month pilot basis, beginning on February 1, 2018.\3\ This pilot
permits both Weekly Expirations and End of Month expirations similar to
those of A.M. settled broad-based index options, except that the
exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from
the closing prices of component stocks.\4\ The Exchange proposes to
list these aforementioned options, commencing on April 19, 2018, with
the symbol ``NDXP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82612 (February 1,
2018), 83 FR 5470 (February 7, 2018) (SR-ISE-2017-111).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adopt the index pricing applicable to
NDX \5\ today to NDXP. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add the
following definition in its Schedule of Fees: ```NDX' will mean A.M. or
P.M settled options on the full value of the Nasdaq 100[supreg]
Index.'' Therefore, each reference to NDX pricing currently in the
Schedule of Fees will likewise apply to NDXP under this proposal, as
further discussed below. The Exchange initially filed the proposed
pricing changes on April 9, 2018 (SR-ISE-2018-33). On April 17, 2018,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NDX represents A.M. settled options on the full value of the
Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index and is traded under the symbol NDX.

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

Section I: Transaction Fees for Index Options
    Today, the Exchange charges a uniform transaction fee of $0.75 per
contract for Non-Priority Customer \6\ orders in NDX. These fees are
assessed to all executions in NDX, including Non-Priority Customer
Crossing Orders \7\ in NDX. No transaction fee is assessed to Priority
Customer \8\ orders in NDX. The Exchange now proposes to apply these
transaction fees to NDXP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Non-Priority Customer includes Market Maker, Non-Nasdaq ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional
Customer.
    \7\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism (PIM) or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross order.
For purposes of the Fee Schedule, orders executed in the Block Order
Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.
    \8\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Rule
100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II: Priority Customer Complex Rebates
    Today, the tiered Priority Customer Complex Rebates in Section II
of the Schedule of Fees are not paid for NDX. As proposed, the Priority
Customer Complex Rebates will likewise not be paid for NDXP.
Section IV.C: Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge
    Today, the Exchange charges a $0.25 per contract license surcharge
for all Non-Priority Customer orders in NDX, which applies to all
executions in NDX, including executions of NDX orders that are routed
to away markets in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Plan'').\9\ The Exchange currently
assesses a $0.25 per contract license surcharge as well as a route-out
fee of $0.95 per contract for those Non-Priority Customer NDX orders
that are executed on an away market in connection with the Plan. Under
the Exchange's proposal, the $0.25 per contract Non-Priority Customer
license surcharge for NDX will likewise apply to all executions in
NDXP, including executions of NDXP orders that are routed to away
markets in connection the Plan. For those NDXP orders that are routed
away, the Exchange will also charge the $0.95 per contract route-out
fee in addition to the $0.25 per contract license surcharge under this
proposal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange applies a route-out fee to executions of orders
in all symbols that are routed to away markets in connection with
the Plan. Specifically, Non-Priority Customer orders in Non-Select
Symbols (i.e., options overlying all symbols that are not in the
Penny Program) pay a route-out fee of $0.95 per contract. NDX is a
Non-Select Symbol. See Schedule of Fees, Section IV.F. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80249 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR
14586 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-23) (establishing the $0.25 per
contract Non-Priority Customer license surcharge for NDX, among
other pricing changes); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
81024 (June 26, 2017), 82 FR 29964 (June 30, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-54)
(applying the Non-Priority Customer license surcharge to orders in
licensed products, including NDX, that are routed to away markets in
connection with the Plan).
    \10\ NDXP is a Non-Select Symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section IV.E: Marketing Fee
    By way of background, the Exchange administers a marketing fee
program that helps Market Makers (i.e., Primary Market Makers and
Competitive Market Makers) establish marketing fee arrangements with
Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') in exchange for those EAMs routing
some or all of their order flow to the Market Maker. This program is
funded through a fee of $0.70 per contract, which is paid by Market
Makers for each regular Priority Customer contract executed in Non-
Select Symbols. This fee is currently waived for NDX orders. As
proposed, the marketing fee will similarly be waived for NDXP orders.
Section IV.H: Crossing Fee Cap
    Today, the Exchange caps Crossing Order fees at $90,000 per month
per member on all Firm Proprietary and Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker
transactions that are part of the originating or contra side of a
Crossing Order. Surcharge fees charged by the Exchange for licensed
products (e.g., the $0.25 per contract license surcharge for NDX) and
the fees for index options as set forth in Section I (e.g., the $0.75
per contract fees for NDX) are currently excluded from the calculation
of this monthly fee cap. As proposed, the license surcharge and fees
for NDXP will likewise be excluded from the calculation of the monthly
Crossing Fee Cap.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ 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. In general, the Exchange
believes that its proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because NDX and NDXP represent similar options on the
same underlying Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index and the Exchange therefore
desires to apply pricing for NDXP in a similar manner as NDX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I: Transaction Fees for Index Options
    The Exchange's proposal to assess the same transaction fees for
NDXP as it currently assesses for NDX is reasonable as NDXP will be an
exclusively listed product on Nasdaq, Inc.-owned exchanges only.\13\
Similar to NDX, the Exchange seeks to recoup the operational costs for
listing proprietary products.\14\ Also, pricing by symbol is a common
practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentivize order
flow to be sent to an exchange for execution in particular products.
Other options exchanges price by symbol.\15\ Further, the Exchange
notes that with its products, market participants are offered an
opportunity to either transact NDXP or separately execute PowerShares
QQQ Trust (``QQQ'') options.\16\ Offering products such as QQQ provides
market participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product
they desire to utilize to transact the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index.\17\
When exchanges are able to recoup costs associated with offering
proprietary products, it incentivizes growth and competition for the
innovation of additional products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NDXP is also currently listed on ISE's affiliated exchange,
Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').
    \14\ For example, in analyzing an obvious error, the Exchange
would have additional data points available in establishing a
theoretical price for a multiply listed option as compared to a
proprietary product, which requires additional analysis and
administrative time to comply with Exchange rules to resolve an
obvious error.
    \15\ See pricing for Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') on Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's (``CBOE'') Fees Schedule and
on CBOE C2 Exchange, Inc.'s (``C2'') Fees Schedule.
    \16\ QQQ is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq
100[supreg] Index.
    \17\ QQQ options overlie the same index as NDX, namely the
Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index. This relationship between QQQ options and
NDX options is similar to the relationship between RUT and the
iShares Russell 2000 Index (``IWM''), which is the ETF on RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a
$0.75 per contract transaction fee for Non-Priority Customer orders in
NDXP and no fee for Priority Customer orders, in each case identical to
NDX, is reasonable because the fees are in line with its affiliate,
Phlx. Phlx assesses a $0.75 per contract electronic options transaction
charge for all non-customer orders in NDX and NDXP, and does not assess
an electronic

options transaction charge for customer orders in NDX and NDXP.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule, Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed transaction fees for Non-
Priority Customer orders in NDXP are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly assess the $0.75 per
contract fee to all such market participants. The Exchange also
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
no transaction fees to Priority Customer orders in NDXP because
Priority Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which
in turn benefits other market participants.
Section II: Priority Customer Complex Rebates
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the Priority
Customer Complex Rebates for NDXP, similar to NDX, is reasonable
because even after the elimination of the rebate, Priority Customer
complex orders in NDXP will not be assessed any complex order
transaction fees. By contrast, public customer executions on C2 in RUT
are subject to a $0.15 per contract transaction fee.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See C2's Fees Schedule, Section 1.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Priority Customer Complex
Rebates for NDXP is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange will eliminate the rebate for all similarly situated
members.
Section IV.C: Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to charge a $0.25 per
contract Non-Priority Customer license surcharge for NDXP, similar to
NDX, is reasonable because it is in line with the options surcharge of
$0.25 per contract for non-customer transactions in NDX and NDXP on
Phlx,\20\ and is lower than the $0.45 per contract surcharge C2 applies
to non-public customer transactions in RUT.\21\ The Exchange also
believes that its proposal to apply the Non-Priority Customer license
surcharge to all executions in NDXP orders, including those orders that
are routed to away markets in connection with the Plan, is reasonable
because it will offset the costs associated with executing orders on
away markets as well as the operational costs associated with listing
proprietary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule, Section II.
    \21\ See C2's Fees Schedule, Section 1.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that its proposal to charge the Non-
Priority Customer license surcharge for all executions in NDXP orders,
including those orders that are executed on away markets in connection
with the Plan is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will apply the same surcharge for all similarly situated
members in a similar manner. The Exchange also believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not assess the surcharge
to Priority Customer orders in NDXP because Priority Customer orders
bring valuable liquidity to the market, which in turn benefits other
market participants.
Section IV.E: Marketing Fee
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to exclude NDXP from the
$0.70 per contract marketing fee is reasonable because the purpose of
the marketing fee is to attract order flow to the Exchange. Because
NDXP will be an exclusively listed product, a marketing fee whose
purpose is to attract order flow to the Exchange is no longer necessary
for NDXP.
    The Exchange's proposal to exclude NDXP from the marketing fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply this exclusion to all similarly situated members.
Section IV.H: Crossing Fee Cap
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to exclude the Non-Priority
Customer license surcharge and transaction fees for NDXP from the
calculation of the monthly Crossing Fee Cap is reasonable because NDXP
will be an exclusively listed product. Similar to NDX, which is also
excluded from the Crossing Fee Cap, the Exchange seeks to recoup the
operational costs for listing proprietary products.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed exclusion of NDXP
from the Crossing Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange will apply the exclusion all similarly situated
members.

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. All of the proposed changes are
to adopt the current pricing applicable to NDX to NDXP, and the
Exchange believes that the pricing for its proprietary products remains
competitive with other options exchanges, as discussed above. In
addition, the Exchange notes that with its products, market
participants are offered an opportunity to either transact NDXP or
separately execute QQQ options. Offering products such as QQQ provides
market participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product
they desire to utilize to transact the Nasdaq 100[supreg] Index.\22\
Furthermore, the proposed pricing changes will apply uniformly to all
similarly situated market participants, as discussed above. For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes to apply the current pricing applicable to NDX to NDXP will
impose an undue burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 17 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their
own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \24\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-38 and should be submitted on
or before May 29, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2018-09574 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 10 Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment: Phenol and salts Phenol and sodium phenate are used as sanitizers, primarily for hard surfaces and as materials preservatives. Outdoor uses, such as swimming pool waters and intermittently flooded areas, were once registered uses for phenol and sodium phenate, but are apparently no longer supported by any registrants. The following assessment of ecological and environmental risk is therefore based only on indoor uses for these chemicals.

1. Ecological Toxicity Data a. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals ( 1). Birds, Acute and Subacute For indoor uses, an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of phenol to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). No avian acute toxicity studies were identified in the reviewed literature for phenol or its salts. Avian acute oral toxicity testing ( 850.2100/ 71 1) is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

Avian dietary toxicity studies using the TGAI of phenol and its salts are not required for the indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

( 2) Mammals Page 2 of 10 b. Toxicity to Aquatic Animals ( 1). Freshwater Fish, Acute Freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of phenol to fish. Data are generally required for only one species. Testing in two fish species is required for stable chemicals with high volume effluents ( e. g., including, but not limited to, egg washing, fruit and vegetable rinses, swimming pools or materials preservatives) and if the LC 50 in the first species is greater than (>) 1 ppm. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish), although other test species identified in the OPPTS Guideline ( i. e., OPPTS 850.1075 ( e)( 4)( i)( A)) may also be used. Many freshwater fish acute toxicity studies were identified from peer reviewed literature, but no studies have been submitted to support registration of phenol/ sodium phenate. Freshwater fish acute toxicity testing ( 850.1075/ 72 1) on one species is required to support the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate.

The results from freshwater fish acute toxicity studies obtained from peer reviewed literature are summarized in the table below ( Table 1).

Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Phenol to Freshwater Fish Organism Results  LC50 ( mg/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 5.02 ( 4.23  7.49) moderately toxic  96h test duration;  juvenile organisms;  renewal system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 11.6 slightly toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system  used active ingredient concentration EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 13.1 ( 11.9 14.1) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  system type not reported;  used active ingredient concentration Tisler and Zagorc Koncan, 1995 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 6.1 ( 5.5 6.8) moderately toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 8.9 moderately toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 9.7 moderately toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system;  used active ingredient Hodson et al., 1984. U. S. EPA, 2002 Organism Results  LC50 ( mg/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Page 3 of 10 concentration Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 10.5 ( 9.1  12.2) slightly toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 7.7 moderately toxic  96h duration;  flow through system U. S. EPA, 2002 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 8.9 moderately toxic  96h duration;  flow through system U. S. EPA, 2002 Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) 17.4 ( 11.9  25.3) slightly toxic  96h test duration;  flow through system  used active ingredient concentration. U. S. EPA, 2002 Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) 13.5 slightly toxic  96h test duration;  static system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) 19.3 slightly toxic  96h test duration;  juvenile organisms;  renewal system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) 11.5 slightly toxic  96h test duration;  renewal system;  used active ingredient concentration. EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) 23.9 ( 20.2  31.5) slightly toxic  96h test duration;  static system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 As shown in Table 1, acute toxicity for freshwater fish ranged from 5 mg/ L ( rainbow trout) to 23.9 mg/ L ( bluegill), with average values of 9.1 mg/ L for rainbow trout and 17.1 mg/ L for bluegill. These data indicate that phenol is moderately toxic to coldwater species, such as the rainbow trout, and slightly toxic to warmwater species, such as the bluegill.

( 2). Freshwater Fish, Chronic Fish early life stage testing is not required for the currently registered indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. Page 4 of 10 ( 3). Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex. Many acute toxicity studies were identified for these species in peer reviewed literature, but no studies have been submitted by registrants to support the registered uses of phenol or sodium phenate. Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity testing ( 850.1010/ 72 2) is required for the currently registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. The results of the studies obtained from peer reviewed literature are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Acute Toxicity of Phenol to Freshwater Invertebrates Organism Results  EC50 ( mg/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 9.6 moderately toxic  48h test duration;  static system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 7 moderately toxic  50h test duration;  juvenile organisms;  static system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 88 slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system EPA AWQC, 1980; and U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna St.) 0.102 ( mmol/ L) (= 9.6 mg/ L) moderately toxic  48h test duration;  renewal system Arambasic at al., 1995 Water flea ( Daphnia magna Strauss) 33.9 ( 30  39.2) slightly toxic  24h test duration;  system type not reported  used active ingredient concentration Tisler and Zagorc Koncan, 1995 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 23.5 ( 21  26.3) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 6.6 moderately toxic  48h test duration;  static system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna Strauss) 4.2 moderately toxic  48h test duration;  static system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 30 slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system; U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 12.6 slightly toxic  48h test duration;  flow through system; U. S. EPA, 2002 Organism Results  EC50 ( mg/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Page 5 of 10 ( 10.2  15.5)  used active ingredient concentration Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 10 ( 8.8  12) moderately to slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system; U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 15 slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system; U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 5.5 ( 4.9  6.3) moderately toxic  48h test duration;  system type not reported;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 12* ( 7.3  20) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 30.1* slightly toxic  48h test duration;  system type not reported U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 32* ( 24  43) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 8.6* ( 7.2  10.2) moderately toxic  48h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 19.8* ( 18  22) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 23* slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 13* ( 10 17) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 11.2* ( 9.8  12.6) slightly toxic  48h test duration;  static system;  used active ingredient concentration U. S. EPA, 2002 Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 8.3* ( 5.8  12.5) moderately toxic  48h test duration;  system type not reported U. S. EPA, 2002 Page 6 of 10 * Endpoint in study is identified as LC 50 As shown in Table 2, acute toxicity for aquatic invertebrates ( Daphnia magna) ranged from 4.2 mg/ L to 88 mg/ L. The endpoint for these studies is the EC 50 for immobilization or the LC 50. The average value for the endpoint concentrations shown in Table 2 is 18.8 mg/ L. Notably, when considering only the studies where the endpoint is reported to be based on the active ingredient concentration ( Table 2), the average concentration is relatively lower at 14.6 mg/ L. These data results indicate that phenol is moderately to slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates.

( 4). Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Organisms Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine organisms using the TGAI is not required for the indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. Several studies on marine/ estuarine invertebrates were found in the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002). The endpoints from these studies are summarized in the table below:

Table 3: Acute Toxicity of Phenol to Marine/ Estuarine Invertebrates Organism Results  LC50 or EC (

g/ L) ( 95% Confidence Limit) Toxicity Category Comments Reference Mysid ( Archaeomysis kokuboi) 96 hr LC50 = 260  4530 ( formulation) highly to moderately toxic  96h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Opossum shrimp ( Americamysis bahia) 96 h LC50 = 12500 ( 10700  15600) ( formulation) slightly toxic  96h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Daggerblade grass shrimp ( Palaemonetes pugio) 96 hr LC50 = 5800 ( 4330  7770) moderately toxic  96h test duration;  static system U. S. EPA, 2002 Table 4: Chronic Toxicity of Phenol to Marine/ Estuarine Invertebrates Organism Results  LOEC, NOEC, MATC (

g/ L) Comments Reference Opossum shrimp ( Americamysis bahia) mortality 27 d NOEC= 2410 LOEC = 6880 MATC = 4080  27 day test duration;  flow through system U. S. EPA, 2002 Page 7 of 10 C. Toxicity to Plants Terrestrial and aquatic plant testing is not required for the registered indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. There were aquatic phytotoxicity endpoints reported in the ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002). While these data were reported in summary form, they indicate that phenol demonstrates low toxicity to various aquatic plant species, with 4 day EC 50 values ranging from 12,000 ppb ( duckweed, Lemna minor) to 370,000 ppb ( green alga, Chlorella vulgaris). Page 8 of 10 2. Environmental Risk Characterization A. Environmental Fate Assessment ( excerpted from the Environmental Fate Science Chapter of this RED)

No environmental fate studies have been submitted to the Agency to support the registration of phenol. Environmental fate and chemical properties of phenol were evaluated based on data found in peer reviewed published literature.

Phenol degrades rapidly in soil, air, and water, with half lives of less than one day to five days. It's low Kow indicates little potential for bioaccumulation in fish, and, although it is readily taken up by plants, the high respiratory decomposition rate of phenol to CO 2 indicates little potential for bioaccumulation in plant tissues. It is not expected to sorb to sediment. Due to multi media degradation pathways, phenol is not expected to be of environmental concern.

B. Environmental Exposure Assessment Environmental exposure modeling was not conducted for the indoor uses of phenol/ sodium phenate considered in this RED.

C. Environmental Risk Assessment The indoor uses of phenol considered in this RED make it unlikely that any appreciable exposure to terrestrial or aquatic organisms would occur when phenol is used according to label directions. The rapid degradation through multiple pathways in environmental media, as well as low toxicity to fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants, indicate a low potential for risk in the unlikely event of environmental exposure from the registered uses. The toxicity of phenol to birds cannot be addressed due to a lack of available data, but the low exposure potential makes risk to birds unlikely from the registered indoor uses of phenol.

D. Endangered Species Considerations The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for risk assessments into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary. Page 9 of 10 Based on the low likelihood of environmental exposure from the registered indoor uses, coupled with phenol's rapid degradation in air, water, and soil, as well as the low toxicity of phenol to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants, adverse impacts to endangered species are not expected from the registered uses of phenol/ sodium phenate. Page 10 of 10 REFERENCES Arambasic, M. B., Bjelic, S., and G. Subakov. 1995. Acute Toxicity of Heavy Metals ( Copper, Lead, Zinc), Phenol and Sodium on Allium cepa L., Lepidium sativum L. and Daphnia magna Strauss. Water Res. 29( 2): 497 503.

Hodson, P. V., Dixon D. G., and K. L. Kaiser. 1984. Measurement of Median Lethal Dose as a Rapid Indication of Contaminant Toxicity to Fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3( 2): 243 254.

Tisler, T. and J. Zagorc Koncan. 1995. Relative Sensitivity of some Selected Aquatic Organisms to Phenol. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 54: 717 723.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2002. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 3.0. Available: http:// www. epa. gov/ ecotox/

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Phenol. U. S. EPA 440/ 5 80 066. October, 1980.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 1978. Effects of Aqueous Effluents from In situ Fossil Fuel Processing Technologies on Aquatic Systems. Contract No. 77 C 04 3913.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21234-21235]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07572]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: April 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn and Suites
Biltmore Village, The Laurel Room, 186 Hendersonville Road, Asheville,
NC 28803. This meeting will also be accessible via conference call and
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-
929-205-6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 928
2739 8984, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to
participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYlde6rpzMjEtCzNGAbe-bF3vkE-p3kiNFS.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the ``Board'') will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The
subject matter of this meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Welcome and Call to Order--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and
facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting
notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via
email, followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the Federal
Register.

III. Review and Approval of Board Agenda--UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Board Action

    The proposed Agenda will be reviewed, and the Board will consider
adoption.

Ground Rules

    [rtarr8] Board actions taken only in designated areas on agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes of the January 19 UCR Board Meeting--UCR Board
Chair

For Discussion and Possible Board Action

    Draft Minutes from the January 19, 2023 UCR Board meeting will be
reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.

V. Report of FMCSA--FMCSA Representative

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will
provide a report on relevant activity.

VI. Proposal To Send a Letter to All New US DOT Interstate Motor
Carriers, Freight Forwarders, Leasing Companies, and Brokers From Non-
Participating States and Rhode Island--UCR Executive Director and
Seikosoft

For Discussion and Possible Board Action

    The UCR Executive Director and a Seikosoft representative will
present a proposal to the UCR Board to send a letter to all new USDOT
interstate motor carriers, freight forwarders, leasing companies, and
brokers from non-participating states and Rhode Island requesting that
the entity register for UCR. The Board may consider and approve the
cost of sending such a letter to all new USDOT interstate motor
carriers, freight forwarders, leasing companies, and brokers from non-
participating states and Rhode Island.

VII. Subcommittee Reports

Audit Subcommittee--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

A. Update on the Success of the First Audit Subcommittee Monthly
Question and Answer Session for States Auditors--UCR Audit Subcommittee
Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-
Chair will lead a discussion regarding the turnout for the first 60-
minute virtual question and answer sessions.
B. Review States' Audit Compliance Snapshot for Registration Rates
Audit Percentages for Years 2022 and 2023--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will review audit compliance rates
for the states for registration years 2022 and 2023 and related
compliance percentages for FARs, retreat audits and registration
compliance percentages and open Bracket 5 and 6 motor carriers.
C. Review the Kansas Roadside Inspection Amendment Pilot--UCR Audit
Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will review the Roadside
Inspection Amendment Pilot that began March 1, 2023. The pilot reviews
all Should-Have-Beens (SHBs) for the previous day and then amends the
roadside inspection to include the UCR 392.2 violation. It also
includes a letter that puts the motor carrier on notice that if they
are stopped again, they will be issued a $300 dollar civil fine each
time going forward.

Finance Subcommittee--UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair

A. Allocation of Unspent 2022 UCR Administrative Funds and Interest
Earned on UCR Administrative Funds--UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Board Action

    The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion on which
reserve funds should receive allocations

of unspent 2022 administrative funds and interest earned on those funds
and provide the Subcommittee's recommendation to the Board of Directors
for possible adoption. The Board may consider and approve allocations
of unspent 2022 administrative funds and interest earned on those funds
to reserve funds.
B. Distribution From the UCR Depository for Under-Cap States--UCR
Finance Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair and the UCR Depository Manager
will provide an update on the timing for a distribution of fees from
the UCR Depository to states that have not yet reached their revenue
entitlements for the 2023 registration year.
C. Discussion of UCR Investment Policy--UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair will provide the Board an
overview of the market factors and account structures of UCR Funds and
provide a summary of discussion from the Finance Subcommittee Meeting
in March 2023.

Education and Training Subcommittee--UCR Education and Training
Subcommittee Chair

Update on Current and Future Training Initiatives--UCR Education and
Training Subcommittee Chair
    The Education and Training Subcommittee Chair will provide an
update on current and planned future training initiatives and the E-
Certificate program.

Industry Advisory Subcommittee--UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee
Chair

Update on Current Initiatives--UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will provide an update
on current and planned initiatives regarding motor carrier industry
concerns.

Enforcement Subcommittee--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

Update on Current Initiatives--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on
current and planned initiatives.

VIII. Contractor Reports--UCR Board Chair

 UCR Executive Director's Report

    The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering recent
activity for the UCR Plan.

 DSL Transportation Services, Inc.

    DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data
from the Focused Anomaly Reviews (FARs) program, discuss motor carrier
inspection results, pilot projects and other matters.

 Seikosoft

    Seikosoft will provide an update on recent/new activity related to
the National Registration System (NRS).

 UCR Administrator Report (Kellen)

    The UCR Chief of Staff will provide a management report covering
recent activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.

IX. Other Business--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will call for any other business, old or new,
from the floor.

X. Adjournment--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
April 5, 2023, at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-07572 Filed 4-6-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18010-18011]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1418-000]

Trailstone Renewables, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Trailstone Renewables, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 11, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this

time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06501 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61997-61998]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2212-001; ER10-2201-001; ER13-2043-002; ER13-
2044-002; ER13-291-001; ER12-1997-002; ER12-1998-002; ER13-1931-002.
    Applicants: South Jersey Energy Company, Marina Energy, LLC, South
Jersey Energy ISO1, LLC, South Jersey Energy ISO2, LLC, South Jersey
Energy ISO3, LLC, South Jersey Energy ISO4, LLC, South Jersey Energy
ISO5, LLC, EnergyMark, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the South Jersey MBR
sellers.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2477-001; ER10-1946-004; ER11-3859-006; ER11-
3863-005; ER13-2476-001; ER11-3861-005; ER11-3864-006; ER13-2475-001;
ER11-3866-006; ER12-192-004; ER11-3867-006; ER11-3857-006; ER12-1725-
002.
    Applicants: Brayton Point Energy, LLC, Broad River Energy LLC,
Dighton Power, LLC, ECP Energy I, LLC, ELWOOD ENERGY LLC, Empire
Generating Co, LLC, EquiPower Resources Management, LLC, Kincaid
Generation, L.L.C., Lake Road Generating Company, L.P., Liberty
Electric Power, LLC, MASSPOWER, Milford Power Company, LLC, Red Oak
Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5275.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2484-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: 2013-09-30 InterconnectionEnhancements to be effective
12/3/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2485-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Amended MBR Tariff of DEMI et al.
to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2486-000.
    Applicants: EWO Marketing, LLC.
    Description: SRPSA Filing to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2487-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits 2013-09-30 2nd BPAIntraHour to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2488-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 09-30-2013 SA 6501 Cancel DTE Electric Company to be
effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2489-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2013-09-30 MesquiteSolarLGIA to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2490-000.
    Applicants: Simon Solar, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Tariff, Blanket
Approval and Waivers to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2491-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3647; Queue No. U2-030
to be effective 8/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2492-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 09-30-13 Schedule 43B Cancellation to be effective 10/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES13-58-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Description: Application of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation In
Respect of the Issuance of Promissory Notes and Other Evidences of
Secured and Unsecured Indebtedness Maturing in Less Than One Year from
the Date of Issuance.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5266.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ES13-59-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Application of El Paso Electric Company under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA13-3-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC, GP Big Island, LLC,
Brunswick Cellulose, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC, Georgia-
Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, aka Palatka, Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Operations LLC, aka Port Hudson, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP,
aka Green Bay West, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, aka Muskogee,
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, aka Naheola, Georgia-Pacific
Consumer Products LP, aka Savannah, Georgia-Pacific LLC, aka Crossett,
Georgia-Pacific Monticello LLC, Georgia-Pacific Toledo LLC, Leaf River
Cellulose, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Georgia
Pacific Entities.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5265.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 1, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24419 Filed 10-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77881-77883]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32001]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65916; File No. SR-ISE-2011-80]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to API Fees

December 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 25, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees regarding the
Exchange's API or login fees. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees regarding the
Exchange's API or login fees. ISE currently charges its Members a fee
for each login that a Member utilizes for quoting or order entry, with
a lesser charge for logins used for the limited purpose of
``listening'' to broadcast messages.\3\ The Exchange currently has the
following categories of authorized logins: (1) Quoting, order entry and
listening (allowing the user to enter quotes, orders, and perform all
other miscellaneous functions, such as setting parameters and pulling
quotes); (2)

order entry and listening (allowing the user to enter orders and
perform all other miscellaneous functions, such as setting parameters
and pulling quotes (but not quoting)); and (3) listening (allowing the
user only to query the system and to respond to broadcast messages).\4\
The Exchange notes that quoting, order entry and listening are
functionalities available only to Exchange Market Makers, i.e., Primary
Market Makers and Competitive Market Makers, while order entry and
listening are functionalities available only to non-Market Makers,
i.e., Electronic Access Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 53522 (March 20, 2006), 71 FR
14975 (March 24, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-09).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE Market Makers currently receive an allocation of 1.8 million
quotes per day per user.\5\ If a Market Maker submits more quotes than
those allocated, i.e., 1.8 million quotes per day per user as measured
on average in a single month, the Market Maker is charged for
additional users depending upon the number of quotes submitted. Each
month, the total number of quotes submitted by a Market Maker is
divided by the number of trading days, resulting in the average quotes
per day. This number is then divided by 1.8 million and rounded up to
the nearest whole number, resulting in an implied number of users based
on quotes. Market Makers are charged on a monthly basis for the greater
of (a) the greatest number of users that logged into the system, or (b)
the number of implied users based on quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 64269 (April 8, 2011), 76 FR
20752 (April 13, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE currently charges Market Makers $1,200 per month for each
quoting session for up to 1.8 million quotes per day, on average for a
month. Market Makers are charged an additional user fee of $950 for
each incremental usage of up to 1.8 million quotes per day per user.
The Exchange now proposes to standardize this fee by charging a flat
fee of $1,000 for each login session. Each login session will continue
to permit a Market Maker to enter up to 1.8 million quotes per day.
Market Makers who exceed their monthly quoting allowance will also be
charged $1,000 per month for each subsequent usage of 1.8 million
quotes per day in a month.
    Earlier this year, the Exchange launched an enhanced trading system
called Optimise. Under its old trading system, prior to Optimise, the
Exchange had an additional category of login known as a ``High
Throughput User.'' \6\ A High Throughput User was a Market Maker who
was allocated up to 3.6 million quotes per day in a month.\7\ A High
Throughput User was able to enter quotes, orders, and perform all other
miscellaneous functions, such as setting parameters and pulling
quotes.\8\ High Throughput Users were charged a fee of $2,400 per month
and an additional user fee of $1,900 for each incremental usage of up
to 3.6 million quotes per day per user. Now that ISE has fully migrated
to Optimise, the Exchange no longer has a need for the ``High
Throughput User'' and proposes to remove it from its Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55941 (June 21,
2007), 72 FR 35535 (June 28, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-36).
    \7\ See supra note 5.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, now that the Exchange has transitioned to Optimise,
Members no longer have a need to use their quote allocation across two
trading platforms. As such, the Exchange proposes to delete text from
its Schedule of Fees that permitted Members to use their quote
allocation to access either the old trading system or Optimise.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
December 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not
constitute an inequitable allocation of fees, as all similarly situated
Members will be subject to the same fee structure, and access to the
Exchange's market is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. In
other words, the proposed rule change will treat similarly situated
Members in the same manner by assessing the same fees to all Members
based on their quoting needs. The Exchange further believes that its
proposal is both equitable and reasonable as it will standardize the
fees charged by the Exchange. With this proposed rule change, all
Members will be assessed the same access fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-80 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-80. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-ISE-2011-80 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32001 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P