UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 April 13, 2006 OFFICE OF PREVENTION PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Biological and Economic Analysis of Dichlorvos for Bulk Stored Commodities FROM: Don Atwood, Entomologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Tim Kiely, Acting Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Dayton Eckerson/ Eric Olson, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 1 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

PRP REVIEW DATE: March 31, 2006 SUMMARY Dichlorvos use for bulk stored commodities is minor. Usage is recommended by numerous states to control the Indian meal moth. While dichlorvos usage is recommended for onfarm storage, surveys conducted by the USDA since 1999 indicate no usage at off farm storage facilities. This indicates that any impact would be at the on farm storage level. USDA in 1990, the most recent available data, indicated that 5% of storage facilities were using dichlorvos for insect control. However, there are other insecticides including diatomaceous earth, Bacillus thuringiensis, and pirimiphos methyl which could be used as top dressing in the absence of dichlorvos. BEAD concludes negligible biological and economic impact in the absence of dichlorvos due to the limited usage and availability of alternatives. 2 I. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSMENT The scope of this assessment is at the national level. This mitigation scenario is in response to the health risks identified by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs for applicators in mushroom houses.

There are limits to this assessment. The primary limit is the lack of available data associated with usage of dichlorvos on bulk stored commodities. In addition, due to time constraints and the diverse number of crops which can be considered bulk stotage commodities, emphasis of this assessment is placed on small grain crops. The assessment relies primarily upon state insecticide recommendations for stored grain insect control. In the absence of efficacy data for dichlorvos alternatives, this assessment assumes that alternatives as recommended by the states can provide efficacy equivalent to dichlorvos.

II. BULK STORED COMMODITES Bulk stored commodity storage is common in the US. Bulk stored commodities include small grains ( wheat, oats, grain sorghum, barley, and rye), corn, and peanuts. Table 1 provides production information for bulk stored commodities in 2001.

Table 1. Production, Supply, Use and Stocks of Bulk Stored Commodities in 2001. a Crop Production ( 1,000 bushels) Total Supplyb ( 1,000 bushels) Total Usec ( 1,000 bushels) Stocks ( 1,000 bushels)

Wheat 1,958,000 2,929,000 2,258,000 671,000 Rye 6,971 12,161 10,971 1,190 Corn 9,506,840 11,416,000 9,870,000 1,546,000 Oats 117,000 290,000 227,000 62,000 Barley 250,000 381,000 297,000 84,000 Sorghum 515,000 556,000 505,000 51,000 a 2002 Agricultural Statistic, USDA/ NASS b Includes 2001 production, beginning stocks, and imports. c Includes 2001 exports.

Bulk storage of commodities occurs either on farm or off farm. However, site of storage is fluid and can vary according to storage availability and market demands. Table 2 provides a break down of bulk stored commodities, small grains, in relation to storage site ( on or off farm). 3 Table 2. Bulk Stored Commodity Stocks On and Off Farm in 2001. a Crop On farm ( 1,000 bushels) b Off farm ( 1,000 bushels) b % Stored On Farm Wheat 517,890 1,105,485 31.9%

Rye NA NA NA Corn 5,275,000 2,989,257 63.8%

Oats 58,100 56,120 50.9%

Barley 92,400 102,589 47.4%

Sorghum 72,400 240,937 23.1%

a 2002 Agricultural Statistic, USDA/ NASS b As of Dec 31 2001 III. BULK STORAGE COMMODITIES DICHLORVOS USEAGE Examination of USDA postharvest insecticide application surveys for bulk stored commodities from 1999 to 2002 indicates no dichlorvos usage. However, it must be considered that the postharvest usage as presented by the USDA represent off site storage and does not include on farm storage of these commodities. In 1990, AMVAC Chemical Corporation indicated that bulk commodity use accounted for approximately 7% of the total pounds of dichlorvos produced. It is assumed that the bulk of dichlorvos usage for stored bulk commodities is for on farm use. The last available data, USDA 1990, estimated that approximately 5% of grain storage bins are treated with dichlorvos strips.

IV. TARGET PESTS FOR BULK STORED COMMODITIES Dichlorvos is registered to control a number of insects which infest bulk stored commodities. It is primarily used as a surface treatement to prevent insects from entering the grain from the outside. Pests for which dichlorvos is registered include; Indian meal moth, almond moth, Angoumois grain moth, cigarette beetle, confused flour beetle, flat grain beetle, granary weevil, and the sawtoothed grain beetle. However, dichlorvos is generally only recommended by the states for control of flying insects. The primary pest which is recommended for control with dichlorvos is the Indian meal moth. The Indian meal moth is one of the most troublesome pests of stored grains. This pest and will infest almost any kind of grain or milled products. However, this pest rarely causes damaged kernels or grain discounts at time of sale. However, larvae may completely web over the grain surface and thus prevent proper air movement for aeration and fumigation, causing surface grain moisture accumulation and " top crusting". Indian meal moth cotaminate grain with frass, cast exoskeletons, and silk. Female moths deposit 60 to 300 egss, singly or in groups either 4 on or within the upper grain mass. The life cycle from egg to adult takes 6 8 weeks and there are usually 4 to 6 generations per year depending upon the food supply and temperature conditions. Dichlorvos is used as a surface treatment to control Indian meal moth in stored grain. Dichlorvos impregnated strips are hung in the open space of the grain storage bin. Strips are placed at a rate of 1 strip per 1,000 cubic feet of air space and are generally effective for up to 3 months. Replacement of strips is dependent up season and amount of air transfer in the open spaces. Dichlorvos is not usually effective against larval stages located below the grain surface and should be used in conjuction with an insecticide application to the top of the leveled grain mass. In addition, effective control should include residual surface spraying or fumigation of empty bins prior to storage.

V. ALTERNATIVE CONTROL A. INSECTICIDE ALTERNATIVES  Alternative insecticides are available to control the Indian meal moth in bulk stored commodities. Insecticides may be applied directly to the grain when binning or as a top coat after leveling the grain. Alternative insecticides for use as a top dressing to control flying insets in stored grains are listed in Table 3. Direct grain application is not discussed as it not a direct replacement for dichlorvos against the Indian meal moth.

Table 3. Alternative insecticides to dichlorvos as a top treatment for bulk stored commodities.

Insecticide Commodity Comments/ Restrictions Bacillus thuringiensis Corn, oats, rye, wheat, barley, sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers Evidence of Indian meal moth resistance within 3 generations so use should be in conjunction with other management practices and should not be used excessively at any one location.

pirimiphos methyl corn, sorghum Effective on all stored grain insects but is not labeled for small grains diatomaceous earth corn, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, oats, rye, barley Grain buyers reluctant to purchase treated grain due to possible lower grade, reduced flowability, reduced test weight , increased wear on equipment, and worker respiratory issues.

Methoprene corn, wheat, sorhum, oats, rye, barley, rice, peanuts Only controls immatures ( IGR). Should be used in conjunction with an adulticide.

B. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL  No effective biological control agents are available at this time. 5 C. CULTURAL CONTROL  Sanitation and grain management are important parts of bulk stored commodity insect control. Insecticides and fumigants should be considered as supplements to sound storage and not as replacements. Thorough cleaning of grain residues from bins and areas around the bins will remove residues that are the main source of insect infestations for farm stored grain. Good grain condition will also reduce or eliminate insect problems for long term storage. Stored grain moisture should be 14% or less and temperature of the stored grain mass should be within 20 ° F of the average outside air temperature. Proper grain aeration to cool grain can prevent insect feeding and reproduction.

VI. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF DICHLORVOS FOR BULK STORKED COMMODITIES As there is limited usage of dichlorvos, alternative insecticides are available, and the nature of the pest damage, BEAD concludes that negligible biological impact would occur in the absence of dichlorvos. Use of alternative insecticides in conjunction with good storage practices should provide acceptable control.

VII. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF DICHLORVOS FOR BULK STORED COMMODITIES The availability of efficacious alternatives and limited usage of dichlorvos on bulk stored commodites (< 5% in 1990) render negligible economic impact without dichlorvos.

VIII. REFERENCES 1. Agricultural Statistics. 2002. USDA/ NASS. http:// www. usda. gov/ nass/ pubs/ agr02/ acro02. htm 2. Agricultural Chemical Usage  Postharvest Applications  Corn and Wheat. 1999. USDA/ NASS. http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ other/ pcu bb/ agch0399. pdf 3. Agricultural Chemical Usage  Postharvest Applications  Wheat. 2002. USDA/ NASS. http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ other/ pcu bb/ agcp0302. pdf 4. Agricultural Chemical Usage  Postharvest Applications  Peanuts, Rice and Sorghum. 2001. USDA/ NASS. http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ other/ pcu bb/ agch0301. pdf 5. Stored Grain Insect Pest Management. E 66 W. http:// www. entm. purdue. edu/ entomology/ ext/ targets/ e series/ EseriesPDF/ E 66. pdf 6 6. Control of Stored Grain Pests. 1997. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. ENY 257. http:// edis. ifas. ufl. edu/ BODY_ IG103 7. 2002 Field Crop Insect Management Recommendations  Stored Grain. 2002. North Dakota State University. E 1143. http:// www. ag. ndsu. nodak. edu/ aginfo/ entomology/ entupdates/ icg02pdf/ StoredGrain02. pdf 8. Preventing Stored Grain Insect Infestation. 1990. University of Minnesota Extension Service. FS 00997 GO. http:// www. extension. umn. edu/ distribution/ cropsystems/ DC0997. html 9. Management of Stored Grain Insects, Part III. 2005. Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service. MF 917. http:// www. oznet. ksu. edu/ library/ entml2/ MF917. PDF 10. Insect Pests of Stored Grain: Indianmeal Moth. 2000. University of Kentucky Entomology. http:// www. uky. edu/ Agriculture/ Entomology/ entfacts/ fldcrops/ ef136. htm 11. Stored Grain Insects of Wyoming, An Introduction. The University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service. MP22. http:// www. uwyo. edu/ plants/ wyopest/ TrainingManuals/ MANUAL22. pdf 12. Stored Grain Management in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. F 7180. http:// ipm. okstate. edu/ ipm/ sprec/ f 7180. pdf 13. IPM Tactics for On Farm Stored Grain. 1998. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. ANR 1125. http:// www. aces. edu/ pubs/ docs/ A/ ANR 1126/ ANR 1126. pdf 14. Insect, Nematode, and Disease Control in Michigan Field Crops. 2006. Michigan State University Bulletin E 1582. http:// www. fieldcrop. msu. edu/ documents/ Part13E1582Storage06. pdf 15. 2002 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual  Insect Control for Stored Products. 2002. North Carolina National IPM Network. http:// ipm. ncsu. edu/ agchem/ chptr5/ 518. pdf 16. Stored Grain Pest Management. 2002. ATTRA Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. http:// attra. ncat. org/ attra pub/ PDF/ storedgrain. pdf 17. Insect Pest Management ( IPM) in Farm Stored Grain. University of Nebraska Lincoln 7 Extension Service. http:// lancaster. unl. edu/ ag/ crops/ inservice/ insectMgt. htm


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 43019]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-46-002.
    Applicants: Targa SouthTex Transmission LP.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Revised Amendment to
Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 7/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/12/22.
    Accession Number: 20220712-5173.
    Comments/Protest Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date. The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary
system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by
querying the docket number.
    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: July 13, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15354 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27544-27545]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0128]

Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Voluntary Information-Sharing
System Working Group

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the recently created
Voluntary Information-Sharing System (VIS) Working Group. The VIS
Working Group will convene to continue the discussion on the need for,
and the identification of, a voluntary information-sharing system.

DATES: The VIS Working Group will meet on June 29, 2017, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. and June 30, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET.
    The meeting will not be web cast; however, any documents presented
will be available on the meeting Web site and posted on the E-Gov Web
site: http://www.regulations.gov under docket number PHMSA-2016-0128
within 30 days following the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Arlington, 950 North
Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203. The meeting agenda and any
additional information will be published on the following VIS Working
Group and registration page at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=125.

Public Participation

    This meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who
wish to attend in person are asked to register at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=125 no later than 10 days
prior to the meeting date, in order to facilitate entry and guarantee
seating. Members of the public who attend in person will also be
provided an opportunity to make a statement during the meeting.
    Services for Individuals With Disabilities: The public meeting will
be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals
requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other
ancillary aids, are asked to notify Cheryl Whetsel at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>10 days prior to the meeting.
    Written comments: Written comments on the meeting may be submitted
to the docket in the following ways:
    E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2016-0128 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You should know that anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Therefore, you may want to review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or
view the Privacy Notice at www.regulations.gov before submitting any
such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2016-0128.'' The Docket Clerk
will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail.

Privacy Act Statement

    DOT may solicit comments from the public regarding certain general
notices. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the meeting,
contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The VIS Working Group is a recently created advisory committee
established in accordance with Section 10 of the Protecting our
Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (Pub. L.
114-183), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., App. 2,
as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). On December 15, 2016, the Secretary
of Transportation (the Secretary) appointed 24 members to the
committee. The first committee meeting convened on December 19, 2016,
to conduct committee and staff introductions, review the mandate
requirements, review the committee charter and bylaws, introduce the
concept of voluntary information-sharing, and discuss plans for future
meetings.

II. Meeting Details and Agenda

    The VIS Working Group agenda will include briefings on topics such
as mandate requirements, existing integrity management regulations,
data types and tools, ILI repair methods, geographic information system
pipeline data and operator implementation, potential subcommittee
needs, past integrity management lessons learned, examples of existing
information-sharing systems, safety management systems, and the
potential need for additional expertise with committee membership. As
part of its work, the committee will ultimately provide recommendations
to the Secretary, as required and specifically outlined in Section 10
of Public Law 114-183, addressing:
    (a) The need for, and the identification of, a system to ensure
that dig verification data are shared with in-line inspection operators
to the extent consistent with the need to maintain proprietary and
security-sensitive data in a confidential manner to improve pipeline
safety and inspection technology;
    (b) Ways to encourage the exchange of pipeline inspection
information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection
technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
    (c) Opportunities to share data, including dig verification data
between operators of pipeline facilities and in-line inspector vendors
to expand knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the
different types of in-line inspection technology and methodologies;
    (d) Options to create a secure system that protects proprietary
data while encouraging the exchange of pipeline inspection information
and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and
enhanced risk analysis;
    (e) Means and best practices for the protection of safety and
security-sensitive information and proprietary information; and
    (f) Regulatory, funding, and legal barriers to sharing the
information described in paragraphs (a) through (d).
    The Secretary will publish the VIS Working Group's recommendations
on a publicly available DOT Web site. The VIS Working Group will
fulfill its purpose once its recommendations are published online.
    The agenda will be published on the PHMSA meeting page https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=125, once it is
finalized.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2017, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Linda Daugherty,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017-12517 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35491-35493]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-64653; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-041

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Establishing
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders

June 13, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On April 18, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish qualified contingent
cross orders (``QCC Order''). The proposed rule change was published in
the Federal Register on May 4, 2011.\3\ The Commission received four
comments on the proposal.\4\ CBOE submitted a comment response letter
on June 6, 2011.\5\ This order grants approval of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64354 (April 27,
2011), 76 FR 25392 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Martin Galivan, dated May 4, 2011(``Galivan Letter''); Ron
March, dated May 4, 2011 (``March Letter''); Jesse L. Stamer, dated
May 8, 2011 (``Stamer Letter''); and Michael J. Simon, Secretary,
International Securities Exchange (``ISE''), dated May 27, 2011
(``ISE Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Jennifer M. Lamie, Assistant General Counsel, CBOE, dated June
6, 2011 (``CBOE Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53 to adopt rules related to a
new QCC Order type that will be available to CBOE Trading Permit
Holders (``TPHs'').\6\ CBOE Rule 6.53 would permit QCC Orders to be
submitted electronically from either on or off the floor through the
CBOE Hybrid Trading System. The QCC Order would permit a TPH to cross
the options leg(s) of a qualified contingent trade (``QCT'') \7\ in a
Regulation NMS stock, on CBOE immediately without exposure if the order
is: (i) For at least 1,000 contracts; (ii) is part of a QCT; \8\ (iii)
is executed at a price at least equal to the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''); and (iv) there are no public customer orders resting in the
Exchange's electronic book at the same price. Specifically, the QCC
Order type would permit TPHs to provide their customers a net price for
the stock-option trade, and then allow the TPH to execute the options
leg(s) of the trade on CBOE at a price at least equal to the NBBO while
using the QCT exemption to effect the trade in the

equities leg at a price necessary to achieve the net price.\9\ The
Exchange would not permit the options component(s) of a QCC Order to
trade through the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the Notice, the Exchange states that the proposal will
permit CBOE to remain competitive with ISE, which has a QCC Order
type that is submitted from off the floor, and other options
exchanges that may adopt a similar order type. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 25393.
    \7\ The Commission has granted an exemption for QCTs that meet
certain requirements from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.611(a). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008) (``QCT Release,'' which
supersedes a release initially granting the QCT exemption,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR
52829 (September 7, 2006) (``Original QCT Release'')).
    \8\ CBOE is proposing to define a qualified contingent cross
trade substantively identical to the Commission's definition in the
QCT Release. A qualified contingent cross trade must meet the
following conditions: (i) At least one component must be an NMS
stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.600;
(ii) all components must be effected with a product or price
contingency that either has been agreed to by all the respective
counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or
agent; (iii) the execution of one component must be contingent upon
the execution of all other components at or near the same time; (iv)
the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g., the
spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined by
the time the contingent order is placed; (v) the component orders
must bear a derivative relationship to one another, represent
different classes of shares of the same issuer, or involve the
securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to merge
that have been announced or cancelled; and (vi) the transaction must
be fully hedged (without regard to any prior existing position) as a
result of other components of the contingent trade. Consistent with
the QCT Release, TPHs would be required to demonstrate that the
transaction is fully hedged using reasonable risk-valuation
methodologies. See QCT Release, supra note 7, at footnote 9.
    \9\ CBOE represented that it will adopt policies and procedures
to ensure that TPHs use the QCC Order properly and require TPHs to
properly mark all QCC Orders as such. Additionally, CBOE will
implement an examination and surveillance program to assess TPH
compliance with the requirements applicable to QCC Orders, including
the requirement that the stock leg of the transaction be executed at
or near the same time as the options leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    Four commenters raised objections to the proposal.\10\ One
commenter expressed the concern that the QCC Order would prohibit
potential price improvement because such order may trade on the
Exchange immediately without exposure.\11\ The commenter was also
concerned that the proposal may promote internalization of order flow
to the benefit of a few select firms.\12\ Another commenter stated that
the proposal may decrease liquidity in the market and was concerned
that public customer orders may get traded through.\13\ Further, a
commenter suggested that the proposal would create an uneven playing
field in the market to the benefit of large institutional customers and
detriment of small individual investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 4, supra.
    \11\ See Galivan Letter.
    \12\ See Galivan Letter.
    \13\ See Stamer Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter questioned the ability of a floor-based exchange
to verify that there is not a customer order on the book at the price
as a QCC order at the time of execution.\14\ The commenter argued that
in an electronic trading environment, an exchange's systems can
automatically determine if there is a customer order on the book before
a QCC order is executed.\15\ The commenter stated that how this
function would be performed on a floor-based exchange should be
clarified, as well as what the time of execution would be for a floor-
based trade.\16\ The commenter argued that ``[a]llowing a QCC to be
implemented in a non-automated environment without a systemic check of
whether there is a customer order on the book at the time of execution
would effectively eliminate the protections guaranteed in an all
electronic trading environment, thus returning [the exchanges] to the
unequal competitive environment from which the ISE's QCC proposal
originated.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ISE Letter.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its letter, CBOE responded to the issues raised in the ISE
Letter and explained that, even when QCC Orders are submitted for
execution from the floor, they are submitted electronically and that
these orders would not be represented in ``open outcry.'' \18\ CBOE
also clarified that the time of execution of a QCC Order would not vary
depending on whether the order is submitted from on the floor or off
the floor and that the execution would occur when the QCC Order is
submitted to the CBOE Hybrid Trading System.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CBOE Response Letter, supra note 5.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
comments received, and finds that it is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\20\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5)
\21\ and 6(b)(8),\22\ which require, among other things, that the rules
of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest and that the
rules of an exchange do no impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In
addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act,\23\ in which Congress
found that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
to assure, among other things, the economically efficient execution of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, which would
permit a clean cross of the options leg of a subset of qualified
contingent trades, is appropriate and consistent with the Act.\24\ The
Commission believes that this order type may facilitate the execution
of qualified contingent trades, which the Commission found to be
beneficial to the market as a whole by contributing to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery
process.\25\ The QCC Order would provide assurance to parties to stock-
option qualified contingent trades that their hedge would be maintained
by allowing the options component to be executed as a clean cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955
(February 24, 2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73)
(``ISE QCC Approval'').
    \25\ See Original QCT Release, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Commission believes that order exposure is generally
beneficial to options markets in that it provides an incentive to
options market maker to provide liquidity and therefore plays an
important role in ensuring competition and price discovery in the
options markets, it also has recognized that contingent trades can be
``useful trading tools for investors and other market participants,
particularly those who trade the securities of issuers involved in
mergers, different classes of shares of the same issuers, convertible
securities, and equity derivatives such as options [italics added],''
\26\ and that ``[t]hose who engage in contingent trades can benefit the
market as a whole by studying the relationships between prices of such
securities and executing contingent trades when they believe such
relationships are out of line with what they believe to be fair
value.'' \27\ As such, the Commission stated that the transactions that
meet the specified requirements of the NMS QCT Exemption could be of
benefit to the market as a whole, contributing to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery
process.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 52830-52831.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See QCT Release, supra note 7 at 19273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in light of the benefits provided by both the requirement for
exposure as well as by qualified contingent trades such as QCC Orders,
the Commission must weigh the relative merits of both for the options
markets.\29\ The Commission believes that the proposal, in requiring a
QCC Order be: (1) Part of a qualified contingent trade under Regulation
NMS; (2) for at least 1,000 contracts; (3) executed at a price at or
between the NBBO; and (4) cancelled if there is a public customer on
the electronic book, strikes an appropriate balance for the options
market in that it is narrowly drawn and establishes a limited exception
to the general principle of exposure and retains the general principle
of customer priority in the options markets. Furthermore, not

only must a QCC Order be part of a qualified contingent trade by
satisfying each of the six underlying requirements of the NMS QCT
Exemption, the requirement that a QCC Order be for a minimum size of
1,000 contracts provides another limit to its use by ensuring only
transactions of significant size may avail themselves of this order
type.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Commission notes that it has previously permitted the
crossing of two public customer orders, for which no exposure is
required on ISE and CBOE. See CBOE Rule 6.74A.09 and ISE Rule 715(i)
and 721.
    \30\ The Commission notes that the requirement that clean
crosses be of a certain minimum size is not unique to the QCC Order.
See, e.g., NSX 11.12(d), which requires, among other things, that a
Clean Cross be for at least 5,000 shares and have an aggregate value
of at least $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under CBOE's proposal, QCC Orders may be
submitted electronically from either on or off the floor through the
CBOE Hybrid Trading System. CBOE has represented that to effect
proprietary orders, including QCC Orders, electronically from on the
floor of the Exchange, members must qualify for an exemption from
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act,\31\ which concerns proprietary trading on
an exchange by an exchange member. Among other exemptions, common
exemptions include: An exemption for transactions by broker dealers
acting in the capacity of a market maker under Section 11(a)(1)(A);
\32\ the ``G'' exemption for yielding priority to non-members under
Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act and Rule 11a1-1(T) thereunder; \33\ and
the ``effect vs. execute'' exemption under Rule 11a2-2(T) under the
Act.\34\ The Exchange recognized in its filing that, consistent with
existing Exchange rules for effecting proprietary orders from on the
floor of the Exchange, TPHs effecting QCC Orders and relying on the
``G'' exemption would be required to yield priority to any interest,
not just public customer orders, in the electronic book at the same
price to ensure that non-member interest is protected.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1). Generally, Section 11(a)(1) of the Act
restricts any member of a national securities exchange from
effecting any transaction on such exchange for: (i) The member's own
account, (ii) the account of a person associated with the member, or
(iii) an account over which the member or a person associated with
the member exercises discretion, unless a specific exemption is
available.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(A).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1)(G) and 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T).
    \35\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59546 (March
10, 2009), 74 FR 11144 (March 16, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-016) and CBOE
Regulatory Circular RG09-35 (providing guidance on the application
of Section 11(a)(1) and certain of the exemptions, as well as the
application of the ``G'' exemption and the Effect vs. Execute
exemption to trading on the Hybrid Trading System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving a similar order type for ISE, the Commission
considered the issues raised in the Galivan Letter, March Letter, and
Stamer Letter, and found that ISE's QCC order type was consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\36\ In addition, the Commission believes that CBOE's
response letter clarified the questions raised by ISE in the ISE
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See ISE QCC Approval, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \37\ and 6(b)(8) \38\ of
the Act. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\40\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2011-041) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15058 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62491-62492]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 12451-023]

SAF Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

October 14, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed

with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of license to change transmission
line route.
    b. Project No: 12451-023.
    c. Date Filed: July 14, 2008.
    d. Applicant: SAF Hydroelectric, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lower St. Anthony Falls Project.
    f. Location: The project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam on the Mississippi
River, in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
    g. Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: David W. Culligan, SAF Hydroelectric, LLC c/o
Brookfield Renewable Power, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201,
Liverpool, NY 13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mr. Steven Sachs at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: November 17, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number P-12451-023 on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: SAF Hydroelectric, LLC (SAF) filed an
amendment request for its license to change the project's transmission
line route. SAF no longer plans to construct the 1,030-foot-long
underground primary transmission line that is authorized by the
license. Instead, it proposes a 13.8 kV transmission line extending
from the project's switchgear to Xcel/Northern States Power Company's
pole P adjacent to the powerhouse and continuing approximately 4,000
feet to the Elliot Park substation; consisting of approximately 2,000
feet of underground ducted circuit and 2,000 feet of overhead circuit.
The overhead portion will be overbuilt with pole extenders attached to
Xcel/Northern States Power Company's existing distribution poles. SAF
is not proposing any changes to the project operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov; using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24959 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P