[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 61746]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2779-000]

Westerly Hospital Energy Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

September 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Westerly Hospital Energy Company, 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 October 12, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25082 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63544-63548]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96062; File No. SR-GEMX-2022-09]

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

October 13, 2022.
    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 October 3, 2022, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/gemx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Sections 1, 3 and 4 in
connection with adopting an Affiliated Entity program. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Options 7, Section 3 to amend its Regular Order
Fees and Rebates for Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols and Qualifying
Tier Thresholds and remove note 13 from the Pricing Schedule. Each
change is described below.
Affiliated Entity Program
    The Exchange proposes to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
certain volume for purposes of paying lower fees or receiving higher
rebates. Today, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'') and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'')
\3\ also permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate volume for purposes of
qualifying for certain pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MRX and ISE Options 7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the term ``Affiliated
Entity'' within Options 7, Section 1(c).\4\ An ``Affiliated Entity''
would be a relationship between an Appointed Market Maker and an
Appointed OFP for purposes of qualifying for certain pricing specified
in the Pricing Schedule. An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is proposed to
be defined within Options 7, Section 1(c) as a Market Maker who has
been appointed by an OFP for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated
Entity. An ``Order Flow Provider'' or ``OFP'' is proposed to be defined
within Options 7, Section 1(c) as any Member, other than a Market
Maker, that submits orders, as agent or principal, to the Exchange.\5\
Finally, an ``Appointed OFP'' would be defined within Options 7,
Section 1(c) as an OFP who has been appointed by a Market Maker for
purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes to add a ``c'' before the term
references within Options 7, Section 1 to further describe this
section of the Pricing Schedule.
    \5\ Market Makers shall not be considered Appointed OFPs for the
purpose of becoming an Affiliated Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to become an Affiliated Entity, Market Makers and OFPs
would be required to send an email to the Exchange to appoint their
counterpart, at least 3 business days prior to the last day of the
month to qualify for the next month.\6\ For example, with this
proposal, market participants should have submitted emails to the
Exchange to become Affiliated Entities to qualify for discounted
pricing by September 28, 2022, which is 3 business days prior to the
first business day of October 3, 2022. The Exchange will acknowledge
receipt of the emails and specify the date the Affiliated Entity is
eligible for applicable pricing, as specified in the Pricing Schedule
within Options 7, Section 1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange issued an Options Trader Alert which provided
the email address and details required to apply to become an
Affiliated Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Affiliated Entity relationship will commence on the 1st of a
month and may not be terminated prior to the end of any month. An
Affiliated Entity relationship will automatically renew each month
until or unless either party terminates earlier in writing by sending
an email to the Exchange at least 3 business days prior to the last day
of the month to terminate for the next month. Affiliated Members \7\
may not qualify as a counterparty comprising an Affiliated Entity. Each
Member may qualify for only one (1) Affiliated Entity relationship at
any given time. As proposed, an Affiliated Entity shall be eligible to
aggregate their volume for purposes of qualifying for certain pricing
specified in the Pricing Schedule, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ``Affiliated Member'' is Member that shares at least 75%
common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the
Member's Form BD, Schedule A. This term is currently described
within Options 7, Sections 3 and 4. The Exchange proposes to remove
the description of an Affiliated Member from Options 7, Sections 3
and 4 and instead describe an Affiliated Member within Options 7,
Section 1(c). The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the word
``affiliated'' within Options 7, Section 4 to refer to the defined
term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 3, Regular Order
Fees and Rebates, to indicate that with respect to the Qualifying Tier
Thresholds, for purposes of measuring Total Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, Customer
Total Consolidated Volume means the total volume cleared at The Options
Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in
that month. Further, the Exchange proposes to provide that all eligible
volume from Affiliated Members or an Affiliated Entity will be
aggregated in determining applicable tiers for each of the Qualifying
Tier Thresholds in Table 1. Finally, the Exchange proposes to note that
the Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity % of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume category includes all volume in all symbols and
order types, including both maker and taker volume and volume executed
in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, and QCC mechanisms.
    With these proposed amendments, an Affiliated Entity would be
permitted to aggregate its volume to qualify for the Qualifying Tier
Thresholds. By aggregating volume, the Appointed Market Maker and
Appointed OFP will both have an opportunity to receive lower Taker Fees
and higher Maker Rebates as a result of the aggregation. The Exchange
believes that the

Affiliated Entity program will encourage Appointed Market Makers and
Appointed OFPs to submit additional liquidity on GEMX.
    As noted above, with this proposed change, a GEMX Member may
aggregate either as an Affiliated Member or an Affiliated Entity during
the same time period, but may not aggregate under both programs during
the same time period. The Exchange proposes to incentivize certain
Members, who are not Affiliated Members, to enter into an Affiliated
Entity relationship for the purpose of aggregating volume executed on
the Exchange to qualify to for certain Maker or Taker tiers.
Options 7, Section 3
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 3, Regular Order
Fees and Rebates, to: (1) renumber current Penny and Non-Penny Symbol
Maker Rebate Tier 4 and Taker Fee Tier 4 as Maker Rebate Tier 5 and
Taker Fee Tier 5, respectively, (2) add a new Maker Rebate Tier 4 and
Taker Fee Tier 4; (3) amend new Priority Customer \8\ Maker Rebate Tier
5; and (4) eliminate current note 13. Each change will be described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 GEMX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36). Unless otherwise noted, when used in this Pricing
Schedule the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail'' as
defined below. See Options 7, Section 1(c), as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maker Rebates
    Today, GEMX pays the following Tier 4 Penny Symbol Maker Rebates:
$0.41 per contract to Market Makers \9\ and $0.52 per contract to
Priority Customers. Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM),\10\ Firm
Proprietary \11\/Broker Dealers \12\ and Professional Customers \13\
are not eligible for Tier 4 Penny Symbol Maker Rebates. Today, GEMX
pays the following Tier 4 Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebates: $0.75 per
contract to Market Makers and $1.05 per contract to Priority Customers.
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers
and Professional Customers are not eligible for Tier 4 Non-Penny Symbol
Maker Rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \10\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange. See GEMX Options 7, Section 1.
    \11\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. See GEMX Options 7, Section
1.
    \12\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
See GEMX Options 7, Section 1.
    \13\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See GEMX Options
7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to renumber Penny and Non-Penny
Symbol Maker Rebate Tiers 4 as Tier 5.
    The Exchange also proposes to increase the Priority Customer Penny
Symbol newly renumbered Maker Rebate Tier 5 from $0.52 to $0.53 per
contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Penny Symbol Maker Rebate
Tier 4 as follows: $0.32 per contract to Market Makers and $0.51 per
contract to Priority Customers. Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers will not be
eligible for proposed Tier 4 Penny Symbol Maker Rebates.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Non-Penny Symbol Maker
Rebate Tier 4 as follows: $0.50 per contract to Market Makers and $0.90
per contract to Priority Customers. Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers
will not be eligible for proposed Tier 4 Non-Penny Symbol Maker
Rebates.
Taker Fees
    Today, GEMX pays the following Tier 4 Penny Symbol Taker Fees:
$0.48 per contract to Market Makers and Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), $0.49 per contract to Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and
Professional Customers, and $0.43 per contract to Priority Customers.
Today, GEMX pays the following Tier 4 Non-Penny Symbol Taker Fees:
$0.94 per contract to Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers and
$0.82 per contract to Priority Customers
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to renumber Penny and Non-Penny
Symbol Taker Fee Tiers 4 as Tier 5.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Penny Symbol Taker Fee
Tier 4 as follows: $0.50 per contract to Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX
Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional
Customers, and $0.48 per contract to Priority Customers. Similar to
current Penny Symbol Taker Fees, non-Priority Customer \14\ orders will
be charged the Penny Symbol Taker Fee for trades executed during the
Opening Process for Penny Symbol Tier 4 Taker Fees. Priority Customer
orders executed during the Opening Process will receive the applicable
Penny Symbol Maker Rebate based on the tier achieved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Non-Priority Customer Orders includes order for the
accounts of Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and Professional Customers.
    \15\ See note 4 in Options 7, Section 3 of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Non-Penny Symbol Taker
Fee Tier 4 as follows: $0.99 per contract to Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq
GEMX Market Makers (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealers and
Professional Customers, and $0.85 per contract to Priority Customers.
Similar to current Non-Penny Symbol Taker Fees, non-Priority Customer
orders will be charged the Non-Penny Taker Fee for trades executed
during the Opening Process for Non-Penny Symbol Tier 4 Taker Fees.
Priority Customer orders executed during the Opening Process will
receive the applicable Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate based on the tier
achieved.\16\ Additionally, Non-Priority Customer orders will be
charged a Non-Penny Symbol Taker Fee of $1.10 per contract for trades
executed against a Priority Customer. Priority Customer orders will be
charged a Non-Penny Symbol Taker Fee of $0.85 per contract for trades
executed against a Priority Customer.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 4 in Options 7, Section 3 of the Pricing Schedule.
    \17\ See note 16 in Options 7, Section 3 of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, for Penny Symbol Taker Fees 1,\18\ 2,\19\ 3 \20\ and 4, non-
Priority Customers who execute less than 4.0% of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume \21\ will be charged a Penny Symbol Taker Fee of
$0.48 per contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer.
Non-Priority Customers who execute 4.0% or greater of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume will be charged a Penny Symbol Taker Fee of $0.47
per contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer. All
Priority Customer orders will be charged a Penny Symbol Taker Fee of
$0.48 per

contract for trades executed against a Priority Customer.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Today, the Exchange assesses $0.50 per contract for Penny
Symbol Taker Fee 1 for all non-Priority Customers and $0.48 per
contract for Priority Customers.
    \19\ Today, the Exchange assesses $0.50 per contract for Penny
Symbol Taker Fee 2 for all non-Priority Customers and $0.48 per
contract for Priority Customers.
    \20\ Today, the Exchange assesses $0.50 per contract for Penny
Symbol Taker Fee 3 for all non-Priority Customers and $0.48 per
contract for Priority Customers.
    \21\ Customer Total Consolidated Volume means the total volume
cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in
equity and ETF options in that month.
    \22\ See note 13 in Options 7, Section 3 of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to remove note 13 from the
Pricing Schedule within Options 7, Section 3. While the Exchange is
eliminating certain incentives to lower the Penny Symbol Taker Fee when
trading against a Priority Customer, the Exchange believes that the
amendments proposed herein to the Taker Fees offer market participants
the ability to obtain lower Taker Fees, if they are currently in Penny
Symbol Taker Fee Tiers 1-3, by submitting additional order flow to
GEMX.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the criteria to qualify for
the tier thresholds within Options 7, Section 3. The Exchange proposes
to add tier qualifications for new Tier 4 which would require a Member
to execute 2.25% to less than 2.50% of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume for the qualifying percentage of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume. Also, for Tier 4, a Member would be required to execute
Priority Customer Maker volume of 1.05% to less than 1.20% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume for the qualifying Priority Customer Maker %
of Customer Total Consolidated Volume.
    With the addition of new Tier 4 in the Qualifying Tier Thresholds,
the Exchange proposes to also amend Tier 3 to accommodate the new tier.
The Exchange proposes to amend the range in Tier 3 for the qualifying
percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume to require a Member to
execute 1.5% to less than 2.25% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
(from 1.5% to less than 2.50% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume).
Also, the Exchange proposes to amend the range in Tier 3 for the
qualifying Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume to require a Member to execute Priority Customer Maker volume of
0.65% to less than 1.05% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume (from
0.65% to less than 1.20% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to renumber Tier 4 as Tier 5 within the
Qualifying Tier Thresholds.
    The Exchange believes that the addition of Tier 4 will incentive
GEMX Members in Penny and Non-Penny Symbol Tiers 1 through 3 to submit
additional order flow to GEMX to obtain lower Taker Fees and higher
Maker Rebates.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options transaction
services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The
fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \25\
(``NetCoalition''), the D.C. Circuit stated, ``[n]o one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained,
`[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \26\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is only one of sixteen
options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order
flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and increase
its market share relative to its competitors.
Affiliated Entity Program
    The Exchange's proposal to permit an Affiliated Entity to aggregate
certain volume for purposes of paying lower fees or receiving higher
rebates is reasonable because the Exchange believes this program will
incentivize certain GEMX Members, who are not Affiliated Members, to
enter into an Affiliated Entity relationship for the purpose of
aggregating volume executed on the Exchange to qualify for certain
lower Market Maker fees. By aggregating volume, the Appointed Market
Maker and Appointed OFP will both have an opportunity to receive lower
Taker Fees and higher Maker Rebates as a result of the aggregation.
Additionally, this proposal will harmonize GEMX's program with MRX's
and ISE's programs.\27\ While a GEMX Member may not utilize both the
Affiliated Member and the Affiliated Entity program to aggregate volume
for purposes of achieving lower fees or higher rebates, the Exchange
believes that permitting aggregation individually under each program,
Affiliated Member and the Affiliated Entity program, will encourage
Appointed Market Makers and Appointed OFPs to submit additional
liquidity on GEMX if they chose to enter into this relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See MRX and ISE Options 7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
certain volume for purposes of paying lower fees or receiving higher
rebates is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all market
participants may enter into an Affiliated Entity relationship, provided
they have not elected to aggregate as an Affiliated Member. As
proposed, Affiliated Members, who are eligible to aggregate volume
today, are not eligible to also enter into an Affiliated Entity
relationship. The Exchange's proposal to exclude Affiliated Members
from qualifying as an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because, today, Affiliated Members may aggregate volume
for purposes of lowering fees or increasing rebates on GEMX. Also, as
proposed no GEMX Member may utilize both the Affiliated Member and the
Affiliated Entity program to aggregate volume for purposes of achieving
lower fees or higher rebates. Also, the Exchange will apply all
qualifications in a uniform manner for an Affiliated Entity.
Options 7, Section 3
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees

and Rebates, to renumber current Penny and Non-Penny Symbol Maker
Rebate Tier 4 and Taker Fee Tier 4 as Maker Rebate Tier 5 and Taker Fee
Tier 5, respectively, and add a new Maker Rebate Tier 4 and Taker Fee
Tier 4 is reasonable because the addition of new Tier 4 will incentive
GEMX Members to submit additional order flow to GEMX to obtain lower
fees and higher rebates. Specifically, Members currently in Penny and
Non-Penny Symbol Tiers 1 through 3 may be assessed lower Taker Fees or
receive higher Maker Rebates if they are able to submit additional
order to qualify for new Tier 4.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees and Rebates, to renumber current Penny and Non-Penny Symbol
Maker Rebate Tier 4 and Taker Fee Tier 4 as Maker Rebate Tier 5 and
Taker Fee Tier 5, respectively, and add a new Maker Rebate Tier 4 and
Taker Fee Tier 4 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange's maker/taker model continues to incentivize Priority
Customers by assessing them the lowest fees and paying them the highest
rebates as compared to all other non-Priority Customer market
participants. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Continuing to pay Maker Rebates to Priority Customers is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for these reasons as well. Paying Maker
Rebates to Market Makers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Market Makers have different requirements and obligations to
the Exchange that other market participants do not (such as quoting
requirements).\28\ Incentivizing Market Makers to provide greater
liquidity benefits all market participants through the quality of order
interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See GEMX Options 2, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend new Priority Customer Maker Rebate
Tier 5 to increase the Priority Customer Penny Symbol Maker Rebate from
$0.52 to $0.53 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange believes
this increased rebate will attract additional Priority Customer order
flow to GEMX.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend new Priority Customer Maker Rebate
Tier 5 to increase the Priority Customer Penny Symbol Maker Rebate from
$0.52 to $0.53 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate note 13 from the Pricing
Schedule at Options 7, Section 3 is reasonable because while the
Exchange is eliminating certain incentives to lower the Penny Symbol
Taker Fee when trading against a Priority Customer, the Exchange
believes that the amendments proposed herein to the Penny Symbol Taker
Fees offer market participants the ability to obtain lower fees, if
they are currently in Penny Symbol Taker Fee Tiers 1-3, by submitting
additional order flow to GEMX.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate note 13 from the Pricing
Schedule at Options 7, Section 3 is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because no market participant will be entitled to a
lower Penny Symbol Taker Fee as a result of the removal of note 13.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the criteria to qualify for the
tier thresholds within Options 7, Section 3 is reasonable because the
addition of new Tier 4 would allow Members to qualify for lower fees or
higher rebates if they are able to execute 2.25% to less than 2.50% of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume for the qualifying percentage of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume and execute Priority Customer Maker
volume of 1.05% to less than 1.20% of Customer Total Consolidated
Volume for the qualifying Priority Customer Maker % of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume. The criteria for new Tier 4 requires less order
flow than the criteria for re-numbered Tier 5 and pays lower Taker Fees
and higher Maker Rebates than Tier 3.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 3 to accommodate the
new tier 4. The Exchange proposes to amend the range in Tier 3 for
the qualifying percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume to
require a Member to execute 1.5% to less than 2.25% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume (from 1.5% to less than 2.50% of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume). Also, the Exchange proposes to amend the
range in Tier 3 for the qualifying Priority Customer Maker % of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume to require a Member to execute
Priority Customer Maker volume of 0.65% to less than 1.05% of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume (from 0.65% to less than 1.20% of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the criteria to qualify for the
tier thresholds within Options 7, Section 3 is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Qualifying Tier Thresholds are the
same for all Members and would be uniformly applied to all Members in
determining a Member's applicable tier.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited because other options exchanges offer similar
affiliation programs and have maker/taker models akin to GEMX's model.
    Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.
Intramarket Competition
Affiliated Entity Program
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
certain volume for purposes of paying lower Taker Fees or receiving
higher Maker Rebates does not impose an undue burden on competition
because all market participants may enter into an Affiliated Entity
relationship, provided they have not elected to aggregate as an
Affiliated Member. As proposed, Affiliated Members, who are eligible to
aggregate volume today, are not eligible to also enter into an
Affiliated Entity relationship. Today, Affiliated Members

may aggregate volume for purposes of lowering fees or increasing
rebates on GEMX. Also, as proposed no GEMX Member may utilize both the
Affiliated Member and the Affiliated Entity program to aggregate volume
for purposes of achieving lower fees or higher rebates. Also, the
Exchange will apply all qualifications in a uniform manner for an
Affiliated Entity.
Options 7, Section 3
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 3, Regular
Order Fees and Rebates, to renumber current Penny and Non-Penny Symbol
Maker Rebate Tier 4 and Taker Fee Tier 4 as Maker Rebate Tier 5 and
Taker Fee Tier 5, respectively, and add a new Maker Rebate Tier 4 and
Taker Fee Tier 4 does not impose an undue burden on competition because
the Exchange's maker/taker model continues to incentivize Priority
Customers by assessing them the lowest fees and paying them the highest
rebates as compared to all other non-Priority Customer market
participants. Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Continuing to pay Maker Rebates to Priority Customers is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for these reasons as well. Paying Maker
Rebates to Market Makers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Market Makers have different requirements and obligations to
the Exchange that other market participants do not (such as quoting
requirements).\30\ Incentivizing Market Makers to provide greater
liquidity benefits all market participants through the quality of order
interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See GEMX Options 2, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend new Priority Customer Maker Rebate
Tier 5 to increase the Priority Customer Penny Symbol Maker Rebate from
$0.52 to $0.53 per contract does not impose an undue burden on
competition because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate note 13 from the Pricing
Schedule at Options 7, Section 3 does not impose an undue burden on
competition because no market participant will be entitled to a lower
Penny Symbol Taker Fee as a result of the removal of note 13.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the criteria to qualify for the
tier thresholds within Options 7, Section 3 does not impose an undue
burden on competition because the Qualifying Tier Thresholds are the
same for all Members and would be uniformly applied to all Members in
determining a Member's applicable tier.

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) of the Act \31\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \32\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2022-09 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-GEMX-2022-09. 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-GEMX-2022-09 and should be submitted on
or before November 9, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22657 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16553-16559]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145; FRL-8354-4]

Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
boscalid in or on caneberry subgroup 13A at 6.0 parts per million
(ppm); bushberry subgroup 13B at 13 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 1.0
ppm; cotton, gin by-products at 55 ppm; avocado at 1.5 ppm; sapote,
black at 1.5 ppm; canistel at 1.5 ppm; sapote, mamey at 1.5 ppm; mango
at 1.5 ppm; papaya at 1.5 ppm; sapodilla at 1.5 ppm; and star apple at
1.5 ppm. It revokes the existing berries, group 13 tolerance at 3.5 ppm
because the two new caneberry and bushberry tolerances cover all
commodities in the berries, group 13. Tolerances are being increased
for cucumber from 0.20 ppm to 0.5 ppm, and vegetable, root, subgroup
1A, except sugarbeet, garden beet, radish, and turnip from 0.7 ppm to
1.0 ppm. BASF, Inc requested these tolerance actions under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In addition, this action
establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of boscalid in or on
Endive, Belgian, in response to the approval of a crisis exemption
under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) authorizing the post harvest use of the fungicide on
Endive, Belgian to control the fungal pathogen, scelerotinia
sclerotiorum. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level
of residues of boscalid in this food commodity. The time-limited
tolerance expires and is revoked on December 31, 2009.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 28, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 27, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryant Crowe, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before May 27, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2006 (71 FR 7951) (FRL-
7759-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F6986) by BASF, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be amended
by increasing the tolerance for residues of the fungicide boscalid in
or on berries, crop group 13 from 3.5 to 8.0 ppm; and increasing the
tolerance for strawberries from 1.2 ppm to 4.0 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant,
which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov.
    On April 4, 2007, in the Federal Register (72 FR 16352) (FRL-8119-
2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E7164) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the fungicide boscalid in or on food
commodities avocado at 1.5 ppm; sapote, black at 1.5 ppm; canistel at
1.5 ppm; sapote, mamey at 1.5 ppm; mango at 1.5 ppm; papaya at 1.5 ppm;
sapodilla at 1.5 ppm; star apple at 1.5 ppm; and herbs, fresh, subgroup
19A at 60.0 ppm. Fresh herbs, subgroup 19A, tolerances were
subsequently withdrawn from this petition, on February 6, 2008, by IR-
4, in accordance with 40 CFR 180.8. The docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0115, identifies this petition.
    On June 27, 2007, EPA issued a notice pertaining to boscalid
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F7169), (72 FR)
(FRL-8133-4), by BASF, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition, identified by the docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0377, requested that 40 CFR 180.589 amended by
increasing the tolerance for residues of the fungicide boscalid in or
on cotton, undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm and cotton, gin byproducts at
55.0 ppm. In the Federal Register of February 13, 2008 (73 FR 7951)
(FRL-7759-3), EPA issued a notice pertaining to boscalid announcing the
filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F6986) by BASF. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be amended by increasing the tolerance
for residues of the fungicide boscalid in or on caneberry, crop group
13A at 6.0 ppm; bushberry, crop group 13B at 10.0 ppm; cucumber at 0.5
ppm; and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except sugar beet, garden beet,
radish and turnip at 1.0 ppm.
    Each petition's notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by the registrant BASF, which is available to the public in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. For the foregoing petitions,
there were no comments in response to their notice of filing

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, an increased
strawberry tolerance to 4.5 ppm is not needed because EPA previously
increased the strawberry tolerance to 4.5 ppm via the rule published
May 3, 2006 (71 FR 25956) (FRL-8064-4). Furthermore, whereas the
registrant requested the tolerance for the entire berry group 13 be
increased from 3.5 ppm to 8.0 ppm, the Agency has established a
separate tolerance for each of the two berry group 13 sub groups. Thus,
where there was one tolerance for the entire group, there are now two
separate tolerances covering all crops in the entire berry crop group
13. Thus, the existing berries, group 13 tolerance is being revoked
because it is not needed.
    BASF submitted field trial data on cucumbers, mustard greens, and
sunflower. These field trials were required as a condition for the
registration of boscalid on these crops. BASF has also submitted
supplemental field trials on fruiting vegetables, spearmint and
peppermint, radishes, stone fruits, and grapes, which were conducted to
support the use of boscalid on these crops in Canada. Review of these
new data is the basis for the need to increase the existing tolerances
in or on cucumber from 0.2 to 0.5 ppm, and vegetable, root, subgroup
1A, except sugarbeet, garden beet, radish, and turnip from 0.7 to 1.0
ppm.
    EPA is also establishing a time-limited tolerance for residues of
the fungicide boscalid in or on Endive, Belgian at 16 ppm. This
tolerance expires and is revoked on December 31, 2009. The Agency is
establishing this time-limited tolerance in response to a crisis
exemption request under FIFRA section 18 on behalf of the California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation for
emergency use of boscalid as a post harvest treatment on chicory roots
to control fungal growth of scelerotinia sclerotiorum.
    According to the applicant, the dormant chicory roots are taken out
of cold storage and propagated in sheds within a controlled environment
to stimulate bud development. These edible buds are known as belgian
endive, and are marketed in grocery stores throughout the year. Based
on information provided in the submission, an emergency situation
exists because the pathogen, scelerotinia sclerotiorum, resides in
field soils and can grow on the chicory root during cold storage, which
makes the produce unmarketable. Vinclozolin had been registered for
control of this pest until it was cancelled in 2001. Existing stocks of
vinclozolin were used until 2003, and there are currently no other
fungicides registered for the post harvest treatment of chicory root to
control fungal growth. Further, the State claims that good agricultural
practices are not sufficient to control this fungal pathogen.
    As part of its assessment of the emergency exemption request, EPA
assessed the potential risks presented by the residues of boscalid in
or on endive, belgian, as discussed below. In doing so, EPA considered
the safety standard in section 408 (b) (2) of the FFDCA, and EPA
decided that the necessary time-limited tolerance under section 408 (l)
(6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the safety standard and with
FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the
emergency exemption in order to address the urgent non-routine
situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA
is issuing this time-limited tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408 (l) (6) of the FFDCA.
Although, this time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2009, under section 408 (l) (5) of the FFDCA, residues of
the pesticide not in excess of the amount specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on endive, belgian after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful
under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized
by this time-limited tolerance at the time of application. EPA will
take action to revoke this time-limited tolerance earlier if any
experience with, scientific data, or other relevant information on this
pesticide indicates that the residues are not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
boscalid meets EPA's registration requirements for use on endive,
belgian or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be
appropriate. Under this circumstance, EPA does not believe that the
time-limited tolerance serves as a basis for registration of boscalid
by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does
the time-limited tolerance serve as the basis for any State other than
California to use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA
without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing
FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
* '' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b) (2) (D) and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b) (2) (D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of boscalid on caneberry subgroup 13A, and
bushberry subgroup 13B, respectively at 6.0 and 13 ppm; cotton,
undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 55 ppm; avocado
at 1.5 ppm; sapote, black at 1.5 ppm; canistel at 1.5 ppm; sapote,
mamey at 1.5 ppm; mango at 1.5 ppm; papaya at 1.5 ppm; sapodilla at 1.5
ppm; star apple at 1.5 ppm; cucumber at 0.5 ppm; and vegetable, root,
subgroup 1A, except sugar beet, garden beet, radish and turnip at 1.0
ppm, as well as the time-limited tolerance for residues of boscalid in
or on endive, belgian at 16 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing these tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Animal studies indicate that repeat dosing with boscalid results in
effects in the liver and/or thyroid in various species. Mechanistic
studies indicated

that the thyroid effects were derivative of enzymatic effects on the
liver. The boscalid database shows no effects that were attributable to
a single dose, and thus boscalid is deemed not to pose an acute risk.
Testing involving in utero and/or post-natal exposure of animals shows
no developmental or reproductive effects; however, this testing
resulted in some findings of qualitative or quantitative sensitivity
with regard to body weight effects in the young.
    The Agency determined that boscalid shows suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity. This finding is based on the following weight of
evidence considerations. First, in male wistar rats, there was a
significant trend (but not pairwise comparison) for the combined
thyroid adenomas and carcinomas. This trend is driven by the increase
in adenomas. Second, in the female rats, there was only a borderline
significant trend for thyroid adenomas (there were no carcinomas).
Third, the mouse study was negative as were all of the mutagenic tests.
Consistent with this weak evidence of carcinogenic effects, the Agency
concluded that a quantitative risk and exposure assessment for cancer
(either linear low-dose extrapolation or margin of exposure
calculation) was not appropriate.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by boscalid as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov. The referenced documents are available in the
docket established by this action, which are described under ADDRESSES,
and are identified as follows:
    Boscalid: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Tolerance on Endive, an Amendment to the Tolerances for Strawberries
and Berries, Crop Group 13, and an Increase in Tolerances in/on
Cucumber and Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1A, except Sugar Beet, Garden
Beet, Radish, and Turnip, dated 7-10-07.
      Boscalid: Addendum to the July 10, 2007 Human Risk
Assessment to Support a Section 3 Use on Endive, an Amendment to the
Tolerances for Strawberries and Berries, Crop Group 13, and an Increase
in Tolerances in/on Cucumber and Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1A, except
Sugar Beet, Garden Beet, Radish, and Turnip.PC Code: 128008, Petition
Nos: 5E7013, 5F6986, DP Barcode: 34857, dated 2-13-08.
     Boscalid: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed
New Uses on Fresh Herbs (Herbs Subgroup 19A), Avocado, Black Sapote,
Canistel, Mamey Sapote, Mango, Papaya, Sapodilla, Star Apple and
Cotton. PC Code: 128008; Petition Nos: 6E7164, 7F7169; DP Barcodes:
336182, 337369, dated 2-13-08.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see:
    http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science
    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm
    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/ aggregate.pdf
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for boscalid used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B of the final boscalid
rule published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44640)
(FRL-7319-6).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to boscalid tolerances in (40 CFR 180.589), EPA assessed
dietary exposures from boscalid in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. There are no toxic effects attributable to a
single (acute) exposure to boscalid; therefore an acute reference dose
was not established for boscalid and an acute dietary exposure
assessment is not needed.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Continuing Survey of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII) 1994-1996 and 1998. As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and
contain tolerance-level residues. The Agency did not use anticipated
residue estimates or percent crop treated (PCT) information.
    iii. Cancer. For the reasons described in Unit III.A, the Agency
concluded that a quantitative risk and exposure assessment for cancer
(either linear low-dose extrapolation or margin of exposure
calculation) was not appropriate.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for boscalid in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
boscalid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used
in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the maximum
estimated surface and ground drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
boscalid for chronic exposures are 29.6 parts per billion (PPB) for
surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary
exposure model. The chronic dietary risk assessment used the surface
water concentration value of 29.6 ppb to assess the contribution to
drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,

indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Boscalid is registered for use on sites that would result in
residential exposure. From boscalid, residential exposure is only
possible on golf courses and at ``U-Pick'' farms and orchards. A non-
occupational dermal post-application exposure/risk assessment for these
exposures was conducted in the previous occupational and residential
exposure assessment and is described in the final rule in the Federal
Register of July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44640) (FRL-7319-6).
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to boscalid and any other
substances and boscalid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that boscalid has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, body weight effects were seen in the mid
and high doses in the second generation male pups. However, the degree
of concern is low for the quantitative evidence of susceptibility seen
in this study, since the body weight effects were seen in only one sex
and only after dosing for two generations. There is a clear NOAEL for
the body weight effects seen in the rat 2-generation reproduction study
and EPA is regulating based on a point of departure below where these
effects are seen.
    In the developmental neurotoxicity study, transient body weight
effects were seen in one sex at post-natal days 1-4 with the animals
recovering by post-natal day 11. Body weight effects were also seen in
the high dose, which was the limit dose. The degree of concern for
these effects are low since the effects are either transient in nature
or occurred at the limit dose and EPA is regulating based on a point of
departure below where these effects are seen.
    While qualitative sensitivity was seen in the rabbit developmental
study, the fetal effects were seen only at the limit dose in the
presence of maternal toxicity. Further, since EPA is regulating based
on a point of departure which is an order of magnitude below where
these effects are seen in the rabbit developmental study, EPA concludes
that the qualitative sensitivity evidenced in the fetuses in the rabbit
developmental study does not require retention of the 10X children's
safety factor.
    3. Conclusion. The FQPA safety factor has been reduced to 1X for
boscalid for the following reasons. First, EPA has a complete toxicity
database for boscalid. The toxicity studies for boscalid show it
generally to have low mammalian toxicity. Further, while data involving
the testing of young animals did show increased quantitative
sensitivity in the young with regard to body weight effects and
qualitative sensitivity in one developmental study, clear NOAELs were
identified for all of these effects. Moreover, the body weight effects
at the LOAELs in these studies were either transient or inconsistent
and qualitative sensitivity occurred at the limit dose in the presence
of maternal toxicity. EPA concludes that there are no residual
uncertainties for pre-natal and/or post-natal toxicity. The NOAEL used
for various risk assessments would address the body weight effects seen
at higher doses in the developmental and reproductive studies. Finally,
EPA has conservatively estimated human exposure to boscalid, relying on
worst case exposures in food (assuming all registered crops contain
residues at the tolerance level), and conservative models as well as
pesticide-specific data in estimating exposure from residues in
drinking water and from residential uses.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. There were no toxic effects attributable to a single
exposure to boscalid, therefore, neither an acute reference dose (aRfD)
nor aPAD were established and acute dietary risk assessment and acute
aggregate risk assessment are not required for boscalid.
    2. Chronic risk. The unrefined chronic dietary risk assessment for
boscalid was made using tolerance level residues, default and empirical
processing factors and 100% CT assumptions. Results of this analysis
indicate that chronic risk from the dietary (food + drinking water)
exposure from boscalid will not exceed EPA's level of concern for the
general U.S. population, and all population subgroups. The chronic
dietary risk estimate for the highest reported exposed population
subgroup, children 1-2 years old, is 33% of the cPAD. Chronic
residential exposure from residues of boscalid is not expected;
therefore the aggregate chronic risk is equivalent to the chronic
dietary risk described above.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus average exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Boscalid is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate average food and water exposures with
short-term non-occupational exposures for boscalid. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has
concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result
in aggregate MOEs, which are below the Agency's level of

concern. MOEs for the U.S. population, and all subpopulations of
concern exceed 1,000. The level of concern for this assessment is for
MOEs below 100.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no
intermediate term, non-occupational exposures are anticipated from the
use of boscalid, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment is not
required for boscalid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Given the data
showing no more than weak evidence of carcinogenic effects for
boscalid, EPA concludes that boscalid poses no greater than a
negligible risk of cancer.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to boscalid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatographic with mass
spectrometric detection) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for
boscalid. Canada has established MRLs for boscalid, but not for the
crops that are in this rule.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, this regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
boscalid,3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-
yl), in or on caneberry subgroup 13A, and bushberry subgroup 13B,
respectively at 6.0 and 13 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm;
cotton, gin byproducts at 55 ppm; avocado at 1.5 ppm; sapote, black at
1.5 ppm; canistel at 1.5 ppm; sapote, mamey at 1.5 ppm; mango at 1.5
ppm; papaya at 1.5 ppm; sapodilla at 1.5 ppm; star apple at 1.5 ppm;
cucumber at 0.5 ppm; and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except sugar
beet, garden beet, radish and turnip at 1.0 ppm. In addition, this
regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of
boscalid in or on endive, belgian at 16 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and
exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under
section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do
not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.589 is amended by removing the entry for berry group 13,
and alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1), and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.589  Boscalid; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Avocado..........................................................                                            1.5
Bushberry, subgroup 13B..........................................                                           13.0
Caneberry, subgroup13A...........................................                                            6.0
Canistel.........................................................                                            1.5
                                                    * * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts...........................................                                           55.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..........................................                                            1.0
Cucumber.........................................................                                            0.5
                                                    * * * * *
Mango............................................................                                            1.5
                                                    * * * * *
Papya............................................................                                            1.5
Sapodilla........................................................                                            1.5
Sapote, black....................................................                                            1.5
Sapote, mamey....................................................                                            1.5
Star Apple.......................................................                                            1.5
                                                    * * * * *
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except sugarbeet, garden beet,                                                 1.0
 radish, and turnip
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. A time-limited tolerance is
established for the residues of the fungicide boscalid, 2-chloro-N-(4'-
chloro [1, 1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide in connection with
use of the pesticide under a section 18 emergency exemption granted by
EPA. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on the date specified in
the following table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commodity                                   Parts per million                                    Expiration/Revocation Date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endive, Belgian                                                                             16                                                  12/31/09
Tangerine                                                                                2.0                                                  12/31/08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-6264 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24013-24014]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13437-001, 13438-001, 14118-000, 14119-000]

Free Flow Power Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project Nos.: P-13437-001, P-13438-001, P-14118-000 and P-14119-
000.
    c. Dated Filed: March 25, 2011.
    d. Submitted by: Free Flow Power Corporation (Free Flow Power), on
behalf of its subsidiaries FFP Iowa 1, LLC and FFP Iowa 2, LLC.
    e. Name of Projects: Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 12 Project,
P-13438-001; Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 12--Auxiliary Lock
Water Power Project, P-14118-000; Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 13
Project, P--13437-001; Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 13--Auxiliary
Lock Water Power Project, P-14119-000.
    f. Location: At existing locks and dams owned and operated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi River in Iowa and
Illinois (see table below for specific project locations). The projects
would occupy United States lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             County(s)/
          Project No.                   Projects              state(s)                Township name(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13438/P-14118................  Mississippi River Lock  Jo Daviess, IL,    Hanover, IL, Bellevue, IA.
                                  and Dam No. 12          Jackson, IA.
                                  Project; Mississippi
                                  River Lock and Dam
                                  No. 12--Auxiliary
                                  Lock Water Power
                                  Project.
P-13437/P-14119................  Mississippi River Lock  Whiteside, IL,     Fulton, IL, Elk River, IA.
                                  and Dam No. 13          Clinton, IA.
                                  Project; Mississippi
                                  River Lock and Dam
                                  No. 13--Auxiliary
                                  Lock Water Power
                                  Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating
Officer, Free Flow Power, 239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114-2130;
(978) 283-2822; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Free Flow Power filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on March 25, 2011. Free Flow Power provided public
notice of its request on December 23, 27, and 29, 2010. In a letter
dated April 20, 2011, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
approved Free Flow Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Illinois and
Iowa State Historic Preservation Officers, as required by section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Free Flow Power as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Free Flow Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://

www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10316 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34910-34911]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Fractional
Aircraft Ownership Programs

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. Fractional Ownership is a program that offers increased
flexibility in aircraft ownership. Owners purchase shares of an
aircraft and agree to share their aircraft with others having an
ownership share in that same aircraft. Owners agree to put their
aircraft into a ``pool'' of other shared aircraft and to lease their
aircraft to another owner in that pool. The information collected is
used to determine if these entities are operating in accordance with
the minimum safety standards of these regulations. The FAA will use the
information it reviews and collects to evaluate the effectiveness of
the program and make improvements as needed, and ensure compliance and
adherence to regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0684.
    Title: Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an existing information
collection.
    Background: Each fractional ownership program manager and each
fractional owner must comply with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91,
subpart K (91K). Information-collection requirements under 91K include
submission for FAA approval of management specifications, which
comprise: Lists of fractional owners and types of aircraft;
registration markings and serial numbers; authorizations, procedures
and limitations under which operations are to be conducted; time
limitations, or standards for determining time limitations, for
overhauls, inspections, and checks for airframes, engines, propellers,
rotors, appliances, and emergency equipment of aircraft; the specific
location of the program manager's principal base of operations and the
program manager's mailing address; other business names in use;
authorization of methods for controlling weight and balance; deviations
and exemptions from requirements of 91K, if applicable; and other
information the Administrator deems necessary. The FAA requires this
information to ensure that the operators' specifications comply with
the requirements of the rule. In addition, the FAA imposes
recordkeeping requirements on 91K operators. These include: creating
and retaining management contracts between fractional owners and
operators; advance notice of non-program aircraft substitution;
briefing fractional owners on operational control responsibilities;
issuance of management specifications; internal

safety reporting; preparation and retention of manuals; maintenance of
current aircraft and pilot records; flight scheduling; pilot-in-command
designation; passenger safety briefings (oral and on information
cards); preparation of proving-test programs; provision of drug and
alcohol misuse education; and various personnel, maintenance, and
minimum equipment list documentation. These requirements help ensure
that these operators have procedures in place to facilitate compliance
with the requirements of the rule.
    Information is collected electronically to the extent practicable,
and the FAA likewise encourages and facilitates electronic
recordkeeping. The FAA uses an automated Operations Specifications
subsystem to issue management specifications to fractional ownership
program managers. This system allows management companies to
electronically generate and electronically sign the management
specifications. Use of this automated system is required for the
fractional ownership programs. While legal contractual documents,
passenger briefing cards, and certain manuals must be kept in paper
form for legal and safety reasons, all other records and reports
mandated by 91K can be created, transmitted and retained
electronically.
    The FAA will use the information it reviews and collects to
evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make improvements as
needed, and ensure compliance and adherence to the minimum safety
standards of these regulations.
    Respondents: 8 fractional aircraft program managers/operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour, 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,736 hours, or 1,717 hours per
respondent.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2018.
Karen Shutt,
Manager, Performance, Policy, and Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-15728 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P