[Federal Register: February 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10492-10498]
[DOCID:fr25fe11-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM10-13-001; Order No. 741-A]

Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.

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

SUMMARY: In this order on rehearing, the Commission reaffirms in part
its determinations in Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric
Markets, Order No. 741, to amend its regulations to improve the
management of risk and use of credit in the organized wholesale
electric markets. This order denies in part and grants in part
rehearing and clarification regarding certain provisions of Order No.
741.

DATES: Effective Date: This order will become effective on March 28,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Hayes (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Lawrence Greenfield (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Scott Miller (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Order on Rehearing

    1. In Order No. 741, the Commission adopted reforms to credit
policies used in organized wholesale electric power markets.\1\ In the
instant order, the Commission addresses requests for rehearing of Order
No. 741. The Commission grants rehearing as to its establishment of a
$100 million corporate family cap on unsecured credit and extends the
deadline for complying with the requirement regarding the ability to
offset market obligations to September 30, 2011, with the relevant
tariff revisions to take effect January 1, 2012, but denies rehearing
in all other respects, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets,
Order No. 741, 75 FR 65942 (Oct. 21, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,317 (2010) (Order No. 741).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. As noted in Order No. 741, the Commission must ensure that all
rates charged for the transmission or sale of electric energy in
interstate commerce are just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory
or preferential,\2\ and clear and consistent credit policies are an
important element in ensuring rates that are just, reasonable, and not
unduly discriminatory or preferential. The management of risk and
credit requires a balance between protecting the markets from costly
defaults \3\ and ensuring that barriers to entry for market
participants are not prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e.
    \3\ In organized wholesale electric markets, defaults not
supported by collateral are typically socialized among all other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission provided guidance to the industry on appropriate
credit policies in Order No. 888 \4\ and the Policy Statement on
Electric Creditworthiness.\5\ Credit policies among the organized
wholesale electric markets, however, developed in an incremental manner
leading to varying credit practices. Because these variable practices
posed a heightened risk to the stability of the organized wholesale
electric markets, and especially in light of recent events in the
financial markets, the Commission proposed that the different credit
practices among the organized wholesale electric markets be
strengthened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,036, at 31,937 (1996) (pro forma OATT, section 11
(Creditworthiness)), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274
(Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 (1997), order on
reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub
nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1
(2002).
    \5\ 109 FERC ] 61,186 (2004) (Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 741, the Commission directed the regional
transmission organizations (RTO) and independent system operators (ISO)
to revise their tariffs to reflect the following reforms:
implementation of shortened settlement timeframes, restrictions on the
use of unsecured credit, elimination of unsecured credit in all
financial transmission rights (FTR) or equivalent markets,\6\ adoption
of steps to address

the risk that RTOs and ISOs may not be allowed to use netting and set-
offs, establishment of minimum criteria for market participation,
clarification regarding the organized markets' administrators' ability
to invoke ``material adverse change'' clauses to demand additional
collateral from participants, and adoption of a two-day grace period
for ``curing'' collateral calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ References to FTR markets in this order, as in Order No.
741, also include the Transmission Congestion Contracts (TCC)
markets in NYISO and the Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR) markets in
California Independent System Operator (CAISO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Requests for rehearing were filed by the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.
(Morgan Stanley), Financial Marketers,\7\ the American Public Power
Association (APPA), East Texas Cooperatives, Six Cities,\8\ Midwest
Transmission Dependent Utilities (Midwest TDUs),\9\ Twin Cities,\10\
and Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The New York Transmission
Owners filed an answer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Financial Marketers are comprised of Energy Endeavors LP,
Big Bog Energy, LP, Gotham Energy Marketing, LP, Rockpile Energy,
LP, Coaltrain Energy, LP, Longhorn Energy, LP, GRG Energy, LLC, MET
MA, LLC, Pure Energy, Inc., Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC, Jump
Power, LLC, Silverado Energy LP, JPTC, LLC, Blue Star Energy, LLC,
and Tower Research Capital LLC.
    \8\ Six Cities are comprised of the Cities of Anaheim, Azusa,
Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, California.
    \9\ Midwest TDUs are comprised of Indiana Municipal Power
Agency, Madison Gas & Electric Company, Missouri River Energy
Services, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and WPPI Energy.
    \10\ Twin Cities are comprised of Twin Cities Power, LLC, Twin
Cities Energy, LLC, TC Energy Trading, LLC, Cygnus Energy Futures,
LLC, and Summit Energy, LLC.
    \11\ The New York Transmission Owners are comprised of Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., Long Island Power Authority, New York Power
Authority, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid, Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Use of Unsecured Credit

1. Requests for Rehearing
    6. Six Cities and Morgan Stanley seek rehearing of the Commission's
requirement that each ISO and RTO revise its tariff provisions to
reduce the extension of unsecured credit to no more than $50 million
per market participant and $100 million per corporate family.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 49-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Morgan Stanley argues that the Commission should eliminate the
$50 million market participant cap. Morgan Stanley contends that the
separate caps--$50 million for a market participant and $100 million
for a corporate family--will encourage entities to reconfigure their
corporate structures to avoid the $50 million per entity cap and
instead use the $100 million corporate family cap. Morgan Stanley
asserts that such a structure will increase costs to market
participants, making the $50 million cap illusory and generating
unnecessary burdens for ISOs and RTOs without a corresponding
benefit.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Morgan Stanley, November 22, 2010 Request for Rehearing at
4-5 (Morgan Stanley Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Conversely, Six Cities argue that the Commission should
eliminate the $100 million corporate family cap. They assert that the
Commission did not provide a rational explanation for permitting
affiliated entities to impose a greater degree of risk than individual
entities, and so should not have allowed the $100 million corporate
family cap. Six Cities also argues that the $100 million corporate
family cap could run up to $600 million if there was a default in every
ISO/RTO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Six Cities November 19, 2010 Request for Rehearing at 12-14
(Six Cities Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    9. The Commission grants rehearing on this issue. Specifically, the
Commission is persuaded that an entity reconfiguring its corporate
structure, to avoid the $50 million single-entity cap and to instead
take advantage of the $100 million corporate family cap, raises a
significant risk that is inconsistent with Order No. 741's intent to
lower risk. Additionally, the Commission has taken into consideration
Six Cities' point that affiliated entities should not be able to impose
a greater risk to the stability of organized wholesale markets than
individual entities. We agree that the cumulative danger posed by a
$100 million corporate family cap on the use of unsecured credit poses
an unacceptable risk to the organized wholesale electric markets; many
market participants either themselves or through subsidiaries
participate in multiple markets. We agree with Six Cities that the
default of a single entity could result in a significant cumulative
unsecured exposure if we were to allow the higher $100 million
corporate cap for unsecured credit originally permitted in Order No.
741. Socializing such losses to other market participants could lead to
even more significant market disruption than merely the default of a
single entity. The Commission therefore grants rehearing and finds that
the limit on the use of unsecured credit should be no more than $50
million per entity, including the corporate family to which an entity
belongs.\15\ This is the approach originally suggested by the
Commission in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \16\ and the Commission
is persuaded it should return to this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ While a corporate family may choose to have a single member
company participate in an RTO/ISO's market, or instead opt to have
more than one do so, in either case, the single entity or multiple
entities together will have a cap of no more than $50 million.
    \16\ See Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 4310 (Jan. 27, 2010), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,651, at P 19 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Elimination of Unsecured Credit for Financial Transmission Rights
Markets

1. Requests for Rehearing
    10. APPA, Midwest TDUs, and Six Cities request rehearing on the
Commission's elimination of unsecured credit in the FTR markets.\17\
They argue that the Commission erred in eliminating unsecured credit
for all participants, particularly load-serving entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 70-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. APPA and Midwest TDUs argue that the elimination of unsecured
credit in FTR markets will make it financially prohibitive for load-
serving entities to obtain and hold long-term FTRs of ten years or more
(LTTR).\18\ They contend that this is inconsistent with the
Commission's responsibilities, under section 217(b)(4) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA) \19\ and Order No. 681,\20\ to enable load-serving
entities to secure firm transmission rights on a long-term basis for
long-term power supply arrangements to serve their load. At a minimum,
they contend, the Commission should direct RTOs and ISOs to implement
Order No. 741 in compliance with section 217(b)(4) and Order No. 681.
Further, APPA and Midwest TDUs argue that they be allowed to request
exemptions under Order No. 741 to ensure that a load-serving entity's
access to LTTRs is not impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ APPA November 19, 2010 Request for Rehearing at 1-3, 4-9
(APPA Request); Midwest TDUs November 22, 2010 Request for Rehearing
(Midwest TDUs Request).
    \19\ 16 U.S.C. 824q(b)(4).
    \20\ Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity
Markets, Order No. 681, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,226, reh'g denied,
Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC ] 61,201 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Midwest TDUs further argue that ISOs and RTOs manage risk in
the FTR markets by determining the creditworthiness of individual FTR
market participants. Moreover, Midwest TDUs contend that load-serving
entities are less of a credit risk because their bond resolutions give
explicit payment

priority to energy and transmission market service providers over
bondholders, in effect giving RTOs/ISOs a security interest in their
accounts receivable. APPA also contends that, although the Commission
noted the challenges in valuing FTRs, the Commission did not provide
guidance in how to address that issue.
    13. Six Cities contends that the Commission should not have
eliminated unsecured credit for all types and holders of FTRs. Six
Cities notes that the CAISO has two types of FTRs: allocated CRRs,
which are used by load-serving entities to hedge congestion costs for
purchases to serve the needs of native load customers, and auctioned
CRRs, which may be purchased by any entity that satisfies CAISO's
qualification criteria. Six Cities argues that CAISO should be allowed
to differentiate between the two categories in setting credit
requirements. Specifically, Six Cities argues that load-serving
entities have no obligation to pay for allocated CRRs, thus cannot
default. By eliminating unsecured credit for all FTRs without regard to
the purpose for purchase, Six Cities argues that the Commission's
decision is not reasoned decision-making as required by the
Administrative Procedures Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Six Cities Request at 3, 10-12 (citing Petal Gas Storage,
L.L.C. v. FERC, 496 F.3d 695, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and others).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    14. The Commission denies rehearing. The Commission is not
persuaded that the elimination of unsecured credit in the FTR markets
is inconsistent with the statutory directive to facilitate access to
long-term FTRs. While section 217(b)(4) directs us to exercise our
authority under the FPA to ``enable[ ] load-serving entities'' to
``secure'' FTRs ``on a long-term basis,'' the statute does not require
that we guarantee the availability of unsecured credit, and does not
require that we ignore the risks posed by the use of unsecured credit.
Denying unsecured credit does not prohibit load-serving entities from
securing long-term FTRs, but rather merely requires use of some other
form of financing, e.g., the use of secured credit or the posting of
collateral. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that
acquisition of long-term FTRs will be prohibitively expensive. Our
reason for eliminating reliance on unsecured credit in the FTR markets
is to reduce risk to market participants, including risk to those
market participants that are load-serving entities. Those seeking
rehearing on this issue have failed to demonstrate that this risk can
and should be so readily discounted.
    15. Nor is the Commission persuaded that unsecured credit in FTR
markets should be allowed for certain market participants based on the
``purpose'' of the entity engaging in the FTR market. The FTR market
exists to hedge, i.e., manage, risk, but there are no guarantees that
such hedges, even for load-serving entities, will themselves have no
risk. The risk of adverse FTR market outcomes and potential effects on
market participants led us to take these actions initially, and are no
more or less applicable to some participants than others based on the
``purpose'' of the participant.\22\ Finally, to the extent that certain
FTRs have inherently low risk, we expect that the RTO and ISO's credit
modeling will result in relatively low collateral requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The analysis in this paragraph, and the prior paragraph,
explains why, as a generic matter, we will not allow exemptions from
this requirement of Order No. 741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. As to the question of how FTRs are valued, as we stated in
Order No. 741, this issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding.\23\
Regarding the Midwest TDUs' argument that where bond resolutions give
explicit payment priority to energy and transmission market service
providers over bondholders, in effect giving RTOs/ISOs a security
interest in their accounts receivable, first, it is not clear that such
payment priority would apply in the event of a default in an FTR
market. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that giving such payment
priority would provide a level of security comparable to the
elimination of reliance on unsecured credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Ability To Offset Market Obligations

1. Requests for Rehearing
    17. Morgan Stanley, SCE, NYISO, and the New York Transmission
Owners seek rehearing of the Commission's directive that, if an ISO/RTO
wishes to allow netting of amounts owed to a market participant against
amounts owed by that participant, the ISO/RTO must revise its tariff to
include one of the following options: (1) Establish a central
counterparty; (2) require market participants to provide a security
interest in their transactions in order to establish collateral
requirements based on net exposure; or (3) propose another alternative,
which provides the same degree of protection as the two above-mentioned
methods.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. P 116-22. The Commission also left open the possibility
of setting credit requirements based on gross obligations. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. NYISO requests clarification that the Commission intended that,
in the absence of a counterparty, security interest, or other
alternative, netting would only be prohibited across product or service
categories. If the Commission does not grant the clarification, NYISO
requests rehearing, arguing that an ISO/RTO be allowed to net amounts
owed against amounts receivable if supported by the doctrine of
recoupment. NYISO contends that, under the doctrine of recoupment, it
is inequitable for a debtor to enjoy the benefits of a transaction
without also meeting its obligations, so a market participant's
benefits from its sales within a category area are lawfully offset by
its obligations related to its purchases within the same product
category.\25\ NYISO argues that, in the event of a market participant's
bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court would allow netting within a product
or service category under the doctrine of recoupment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NYISO November 19, 2010 Request for Clarification or
Rehearing at 4 (citing In re Peterson Distributing, Inc., 82 F.3d
956 (10th Cir. 1996), and other cases). The New York Transmission
Owners support NYISO's arguments. New York Transmission Owners
December 8, 2010 Answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. SCE requests a similar clarification, and questions how ``gross
obligations'' is defined. SCE states that the Commission was not clear
whether requiring collateral posted to gross obligations would (i)
allow for netting within a given market but not between markets, (ii)
allow for netting for transactions deemed not to have participated in
the markets (e.g. E-schedules), or (iii) disallow netting both within
markets and across markets and require credit obligations to be
determined on an absolute gross basis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ SCE November 22, 2010 Request for Clarification or
Rehearing at 4 (SCE Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. SCE also requests that the Commission extend the time for
compliance with this tariff revision until October 1, 2012, or
alternatively, clarify that parties may move for an extension of time
if needed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Morgan Stanley argues that ISOs and RTOs should not require
market participants to post collateral to their gross obligations,
especially if they are netting amounts owed against amounts receivable
under their tariffs. Morgan Stanley contends that requiring collateral
to gross obligations will be very expensive, without corresponding
benefits. Morgan Stanley also asserts that ``other less costly (and at
least as effective) options are available.'' \28\ Morgan Stanley
requests in the

alternative that if the Commission retains this requirement, then it
should allow higher levels of unsecured credit to ameliorate the
effects of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Morgan Stanley Request at 6, generally 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    22. The Commission denies rehearing. In Order No. 741, the
Commission established requirements to minimize risk in the event of
bankruptcy (i.e., the options noted in paragraph 117 of Order No. 741,
and described above in paragraph 17) out of concern that the effect of
a default could be exacerbated by a bankruptcy court decision that does
not allow netting. Those concerns exist whether netting is performed
within a market product category or across market categories. A market
administrator must have legal support to net transactions, whether it
serves as a counterparty, has been granted a security interest in the
transactions, or employs some other solution, in the event of a legal
challenge to set-off during a bankruptcy proceeding.\29\ The record
before us does not clearly demonstrate that the availability of netting
will depend on whether it is within or across product categories, and
therefore we deny rehearing on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 553, provides
that a creditor may offset payments owed to the debtor against
payments owed by the debtor, under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Our denial of rehearing is based in part on the testimony we
received during the May 2010 technical conference. In response to
questioning regarding set-off within product markets, Mr. Stephen
Dutton suggested that a bankruptcy court would be most likely to allow
netting within product categories if the ISO or RTO was acting in the
same capacity with respect to amounts owed and amounts owing.\30\ In
response to Mr. Dutton's comments, Mr. Harold Novikoff asserted that
the bankruptcy court would look at a different issue, specifically,
whether the ISO or RTO is a party to the transaction.\31\ Mr. Iskender
Catto reiterated Mr. Novikoff's opinion, indicating that a court would
look first to the identity of the counterparty, then the role served by
the counterparty.\32\ Based on this testimony, we believe that netting
within product categories may put an RTO or an ISO at risk, were it to
not adopt one of remedies we specified in Order No. 741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Testimony at Technical Conference on Credit Reforms in
Organized Wholesale Electric Markets, Tr. 93:2-16 (May 11, 2010)
(Mr. Stephen Dutton, Barnes & Thornburg).
    \31\ Id. at 93:20-94:17 (Mr. Harold Novikoff, Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz).
    \32\ Id. at 94:24-95:11 (Mr. Iskender H. Catto, Kirkland & Ellis
on behalf of the Committee of Chief Risk Officers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The Commission also denies Morgan Stanley's request for
rehearing on the issue of posting collateral based on gross
obligations; this was merely one option presented in Order No. 741. The
Commission provided two other options to meet its requirements on this
matter and expressed its willingness to consider yet others that can be
shown to provide the same degree of protections as the two other
options set out in Order No. 741. In the absence of the RTO or ISO
taking advantage of such options, it is appropriate that credit
requirements be set based on gross obligations in order to minimize the
risk, and costs, of market participant default and a bankruptcy court
decision refusing to allow netting; anything less would not adequately
protect the market and participants in the markets.
    25. As to SCE's request that the Commission delay the required
filing date of a compliance filing regarding this requirement to
October 1, 2012, we believe that such an extension is excessive.
However, we will extend the date for filing tariff revisions to comply
with this requirement related to the ability to offset market
obligations to September 30, 2011, with the relevant tariff revisions
to take effect January 1, 2012.

D. Minimum Criteria for Market Participation

1. Requests for Rehearing
    26. APPA, Twin Cities, Six Cities, and Financial Marketers seek
rehearing on the Commission's determination that each ISO and RTO
should include in its tariff language that sets forth specific minimum
participation criteria to be eligible to participate in the organized
wholesale electric market, such as requirements related to adequate
capitalization and risk management controls.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 131-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. APPA requests that the Commission instruct RTOs and ISOs to
avoid unreasonable or onerous conditions on load-serving entities or
provide specific exemptions for them if needed. APPA states that
smaller, public power load-serving entities present ``minimal risk, and
related costs,'' so they should not have to comply with unreasonable or
onerous minimum criteria to participate in the market. Also, a default
by such a participant would not pose a risk of significant market
disruption.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ APPA Request at 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Twin Cities request that the Commission provide stronger
guidance on minimum criteria, and require that the criteria be uniform
across ISOs and RTOs. Twin Cities state that market participants that
participate in several markets are burdened by participating in
multiple stakeholder processes and they risk being treated differently
by different markets. Twin Cities request that the Commission establish
the minimum participation criteria, similar to that of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), based on tangible net worth. Similar criteria,
established by the Commission to apply to all ISO and RTO markets,
would provide regulatory certainty, reduce risk, and promote the goal
of Order No. 741.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Twin Cities November 22, 2010 Request for Clarification or
Rehearing at 5-7 (Twin Cities Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Six Cities requests that the Commission require that minimum
participation criteria be tiered or calibrated based on the magnitude
of a market participant's positions in the market. Because the size of
a participant's positions has an effect on the size of a risk that it
poses, there should be a correlation between the market participant's
positions and the minimum criteria.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Six Cities Request at 3, 10-12. Financial Marketers echo
these comments. Financial Marketers November 22, 2010 Request for
Rehearing at 13 (Financial Marketers Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Financial Marketers express concern that the minimum criteria
will exclude small and mid-size companies, virtual traders, and new
entrants from participating in the RTO/ISO markets. They contend that
the Commission has praised such participants,\37\ and that customers in
Midwest ISO have suffered higher prices since Midwest ISO began
discouraging virtual trading by allocating high Revenue Sufficiency
Guarantee (RSG) charges to virtual transactions.\38\ Financial
Marketers further argue that the stakeholder process will not protect
small companies or new entrants, because large utilities will be able
to meet any minimum criteria and have a vested interest in excluding
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Financial Marketers Request at 3-4 (citing California
Independent System Operator Corp., 107 FERC ] 61,274 (2004), and
others).
    \38\  Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Financial Marketers argue that most smaller companies are fully
collateralized, and thus pose no threat. They contend that other
markets rely on collateral requirements to curb market

risk, and that the CFTC does not require minimum capitalization.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at 29-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Financial Marketers also note that ISO New England Inc. (ISO-
NE) and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) have previously considered
minimum participation criteria, but abandoned their efforts after
concluding that they would reduce competition, result in greater market
power by existing large companies, and not provide any additional
protections to the market.\40\ Financial Marketers conclude that market
participants have developed businesses based on participation in the
organized wholesale electric markets, and regulations that would
prohibit their participation would result in a regulatory taking that
would require compensation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\  Id. at 14-15.
    \41\ Id. at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    33. The Commission denies rehearing. In Order No. 741, the
Commission deferred to stakeholder processes the determination of
reasonable minimum criteria for market participation.\42\ Because no
market participation criteria have yet to be filed, the Commission
cannot determine whether such criteria are or are not reasonable.
However, we note that we did not mandate a single set of criteria for
all participants in a market,\43\ and we see value in Six Cities'
suggestion that stakeholders consider whether some criteria can be
tiered or calibrated based on, for example, the size of a market
participant's positions. Such an approach would allow for
differentiation based on a market participant's characteristics, but
still reduce the market's exposure to the risk of a default. We remind
stakeholders that the Commission will review all criteria, including
both market-wide criteria and any tiered or calibrated criteria, when
such criteria are filed, to ensure that they are just and reasonable
and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 132-33.
    \43\ While we did indicate that criteria should apply to all
market participants rather than only certain participants, see Order
No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 133, our intent was that
there be minimum criteria for all market participants and not that
all market participants necessarily be held to the same minimum
criteria. For some criteria, holding all market participants to the
same minimum criteria may be appropriate. For other criteria,
however, it may be appropriate to hold different participants to
different minimum criteria, e.g., based on the size of the
participants' positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Grace Period To ``Cure'' Collateral Posting

1. Requests for Rehearing
    34. East Texas Cooperatives request rehearing on the Commission's
establishment of a two-day grace period to ``cure'' a collateral
call.\44\ East Texas Cooperatives assert that the Commission should not
have established a uniform two-day period because it was not supported
by sufficient evidence and the requirement will be onerous for small
market participants with small staffs and constrained budgets. East
Texas Cooperatives argue that most ISOs and RTOs already have two- or
three-day cure periods, and the matter should have been left to their
discretion. Alternatively, the Commission could establish a uniform
three-day ``cure'' period for all entities or, as a last resort, a
three-day period for not-for-profit load-serving entities, such as
cooperatives, municipalities, and other public power entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. P 160-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    35. The Commission denies rehearing. In establishing the two-day
cure period in Order No. 741, the Commission carefully weighed the
needs of market participants with the need for the mitigation of
uncertainty when the organized electric wholesale markets are under
stress. As we learned during the financial crisis, a market
administrator may request additional collateral when the market is
under stress. As a result, timely cure of a collateral deficiency is
critical. We also note that the CFTC called for a one-day cure period,
while others promoted a three-day cure period, and we found--and
continue to find--that the two-day cure period strikes a reasonable
balance between mitigating uncertainty in the market and providing for
the needs of participants.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Requests for Rehearing
    36. APPA, Six Cities, and Financial Marketers challenge the
Commission's conclusion that Order No. 741 ``will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' \45\ They contend that the Commission should analyze the
effect of Order No. 741 on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. P 184. The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to
the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 5
U.S.C. 601(3) (citing section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). The Small Business Size Standards component of the North
American Industry Classification System defines a small electric
utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged
in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding
fiscal years did not exceed 4 million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201 (2010).
    \46\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. APPA and Six Cities argue that the Commission erred in
determining that small utilities within the balancing authority area of
an RTO have a choice as to whether to join the RTO. Because large
transmission owners are part of the RTO, they argue, small utilities
must join to obtain necessary transmission and ancillary services. APPA
estimates that more than a thousand public power distribution systems,
plus rural electric cooperatives, are located in states served by RTOs
and are ``small utilities'' within the meaning of RFA. APPA also
contends that public power systems have unique financial constraints
and may not be able to meet the new financial requirements that RTOs
might impose.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ APPA Request at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. In support of its argument, Six Cities cites Aeronautical
Repair Station Ass'n,\48\ in which, they state, the court held that
even though air carriers were the direct objects of the rule
promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the employees
of the contractors and subcontractors were also subject to the rule.
The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FAA was required to analyze the
effect of the rule on the contractors and subcontractors.\49\ Six
Cities argues that the ISOs and RTOs are analogous to air carriers, and
market participants can be compared to the contractors and
subcontractors which are also directly regulated by the agency's
rule.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\  Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n, Inc. v. FAA, 494 F.3d
161 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
    \49\ Id. at 177.
    \50\ Six Cities Request at 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Financial Marketers argue that the Commission did not properly
analyze the effect of minimum participation criteria on small financial
traders under the RFA. Financial Marketers contend that the
Commission's directives will push small financial traders out of ISO/
RTO markets and prevent market entry by smaller companies.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Financial Marketers Request at 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    40. The RFA requires that, when promulgating a final rule, an
agency must conduct an analysis that includes, among other things,
``(3) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate

is available; * * * and (5) a description of the steps the agency has
taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes * * *.''
\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Under the RFA, an agency must consider the economic impact on
entities directly affected and regulated by the subject regulations.
The D.C. Circuit has held that Congress did not, however, intend to
require that the agency ``consider every indirect effect that any
regulation might have on small businesses in any stratum of the
national economy.'' \53\ More recently, the Seventh Circuit compared
the holdings in several cases considering the RFA, including
Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n, and described the rule as follows:
``Small entities directly regulated by the proposed statute--whose
conduct is circumscribed or mandated--may bring a challenge to the RFA
analysis or certification of an agency. * * * However, when the
regulation reaches small entities only indirectly, they do not have
standing to bring an RFA challenge.'' \54\ The court further stated
that, where the regulation ``expressly'' addresses an entity's actions,
that entity is subject to an RFA analysis, and that, although the
regulation may affect the actions of other entities, those other
entities are not subject to an RFA analysis.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\  Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 343
(D.C. Cir. 1985); see also Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA,
255 F.3d 855, 868-69 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \54\ White Eagle Cooperative Association v. Conner, 553 F.3d
467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. We note at the outset that the regulations adopted in this
proceeding directly apply to RTOs and ISOs only, not small entities,
thus the Commission is not required to assess the impact of the rule on
small entities.\56\ In contrast to Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n,
in which the regulations expressly required certain actions by small
entities, in this rulemaking, the regulations require specific actions
only by the RTOs and ISOs.\57\ Further, the relevant impact considered
under the RFA is the impact of compliance, including ``the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule.'' \58\ Those obligations are directly imposed on RTOs
and ISOs only, and not market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 F.3d at 869.
    \57\ Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n, Inc, 494 F.3d at 177.
    \58\ Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, 773 F.2d at 342 (citing 5
U.S.C. Sec.  603(b)(4) and related legislative history).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Additionally, in issuing Order No. 741, the Commission focused
on protecting the organized wholesale electric markets from default by
a market participant. In the event of a default by a market
participant, the losses related to that default must be socialized
among all other market participants, potentially leading to cascading
defaults, all leading to adverse effects on customers. The Commission
sought to balance measures intended to protect the market and market
participants from the risk of a default against the effect of the
measures on market participants. For instance, in establishing the cap
on unsecured credit,\59\ setting the two-day cure period,\60\ and, on
rehearing, allowing RTOs/ISOs to consider a market participant's level
of participation in the market in setting minimum criteria,\61\ the
Commission has sought to protect the markets and market participants
from the risk of a default, while providing consideration of the needs
of the market participants themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 50.
    \60\ Id. P 161.
    \61\ See supra P 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. The Commission thus has sought to accommodate market
participants' concerns while still meeting its responsibility to
protect markets to ensure that the resulting rates are just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential under FPA
sections 205 and 206; however, we are not obligated to conduct a
further analysis under the RFA. The regulations promulgated in Order
No. 741 and here direct the actions of the ISOs and RTOs in
administering the organized wholesale electric markets. While the
regulations may indirectly affect other entities--market participants,
including investor-owned utilities, municipalities and cooperatives,
and financial marketers, as well as customers of all kinds--we are not
required to conduct an analysis under the RFA on such entities in this
proceeding.
    45. Furthermore, by requiring tariff revisions to protect the
markets and market participants from the risk and resulting cost of
default by others, we are not only protecting market participants from
the risk and resulting costs of default by others, but we are, in
particular, protecting those smaller market participants that are least
able to withstand a default. Smaller market participants have fewer
resources available to them to deal with a default when one occurs, and
thus it is particularly important for smaller market participants that
the Commission put in place measures that minimize the risk of a
default and the resulting cost of a default.
    46. Further, we note that ISOs and RTOs are in the best position,
in the first instance, to assess to what extent credit practices, as
implemented in their markets, will have an adverse effect on their
market participants, as well as the potential harm to the market in the
event of a default. Thus, as noted in Order No. 741, ISOs and RTOs may,
through their stakeholder processes, propose specific exemptions for
individual entities whose participation is such that a default would
not risk significant market disruptions.\62\ We also note that, as the
ISOs and RTOs submit their compliance filings, interested persons will
have an opportunity to contest the various revisions as filed for
individual tariffs, and the Commission remains open to comments on the
particular revisions at that time. The Commission, however, will not,
at this time, adopt any exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Order No. 741, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,317 at P 165. We
also note that a market participant retains its right to
individually seek an exemption under section 206 of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    47. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
an agency.\63\ The revisions in Order No. 741 to the information
collection requirements for ISOs and RTOs were approved under OMB
Control Nos. 1902-0096. While this order clarifies and revises aspects
of the existing information collection requirements, it does not add to
these requirements. Accordingly, a copy of this order will be sent to
OMB for informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Document Availability

    48. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    49. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, eLibrary. The full

text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft
Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this
document in eLibrary, type ``RM10-13'' in the docket number field.
    50. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-
mail at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at
202-502-8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).

V. Effective Date

    51. Changes to Order No. 741 adopted in this order on rehearing
will become effective March 28, 2011.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 35,
subchapter B, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Section 35.47 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.47  Tariff provisions regarding credit practices in organized
wholesale electric markets.

* * * * *
    (a) Limit the amount of unsecured credit extended by an organized
wholesale electric market to no more than $50 million for each market
participant; where a corporate family includes more than one market
participant participating in the same organized wholesale electric
market, the limit on the amount of unsecured credit extended by that
organized wholesale electric market shall be no more than $50 million
for the corporate family.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-4088 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 63466-63467]
[DOCID:fr15oc10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-509-000]

Sawgrass Storage LLC; Notice of Petition

October 7, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 27, 2010, Sawgrass Storage LLC
(Sawgrass Storage), 3333 Warrenville Road, Suite 630, Lisle, Illinois
60532, filed in Docket No. CP10-509-000, a petition for Exemption of
Temporary Acts and Operations and Request for Expedited Approval,
pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, and section 7(c)(1)(B) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to
perform specific temporary activities related to drill site preparation
and drilling of a test well and water well located in Lincoln Parish,
Louisiana. Specifically, Sawgrass Storage proposes to drill a test well
to determine the feasibility of developing a depleted natural gas
production reservoir in the Vaughn Sandstone of the Cotton Valley
formation into a natural gas storage facility, and a water well to
assist in the drilling of the test well, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on

file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Stephen Cittadine, Vice President, Sawgrass Storage LLC, 3333
Warrenville Road, Suite 630, Lisle, Illinois 60532, or by calling (630)
245-7801 (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to
Christopher A. Schindler, Eric S. Lashner, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Columbia Square, 555 13th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: October 28, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25953 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 21, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20646

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. (NORTHWEST) filed 3/9/05 for:

XX  Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Detroit, Michigan, and the terminal point San
Jose del Cabo, Mexico.  Northwest proposes to operate this service on a
seasonal basis, beginning January 7, 2006.

Applicant rep: Megan Rae Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: April 21, 2005 through April
21, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is
subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of
Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.  Regarding the start-up date, we
determined, in the circumstances presented, including the seasonal
nature of the proposed service and Northwest’s proposed start-up date,
as well as the fact that no party has opposed this request and there is
one designation opportunity still available for the authority requested
here, to require Northwest to institute the proposed services no later
than January 7, 2006.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75882-75884]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0942; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-049-AD;
Amendment 39-16535; AD 2010-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft
Models Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    As a result of the fatigue-testing programme on the Jetstream
fatigue test specimen, it has been identified that failure of the
undercarriage jack mounting shaft assembly can occur.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a Main Landing
Gear (MLG) collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently
damage to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 11, 2011.
    On January 11, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
telephone +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2010
(75 FR 59170). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    As a result of the fatigue-testing programme on the Jetstream
fatigue test specimen, it has been identified that failure of the
undercarriage jack mounting shaft assembly can occur.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a Main Landing
Gear (MLG) collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently
damage to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.
    BAE SYSTEMS have now defined safe life limits for these
components.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
application of safe life limits to these components.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 80 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 15 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $10,000 per
product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $902,000, or $11,275 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-25-02 British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Amendment 39-16535;
Docket No. FAA-2010-0942; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-049-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
11, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft
Models Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    As a result of the fatigue-testing programme on the Jetstream
fatigue test specimen, it has been identified that failure of the
undercarriage jack mounting shaft assembly can occur.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a Main Landing
Gear (MLG) collapse on the ground or during landing and consequently
damage to the aeroplane or injury to the occupants.
    BAE SYSTEMS have now defined safe life limits for these
components.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
application of safe life limits to these components.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 30 days after January 11, 2011 (the effective date of
this AD), establish the number of flight cycles (landings)
accumulated since installation of each left and right main landing
gear radius rod mounting shaft assemblies following paragraph 2.(A)
of BAE Systems British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Service Bulletin 05-JA090143, dated April 30, 2009.
    (2) Replace the left and right main landing gear radius rod
mounting shaft assembly with an airworthy assembly following British
Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA990142,
dated March 26, 1999, within the following:
    (i) For Model Jetstream Series 3101: Within 38,220 total
landings accumulated on each main landing gear radius rod mounting
shaft assembly or within 1,000 landings after January 11, 2011 (the
effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later; and
    (ii) For Model Jetstream Model 3201: Within 31,038 total
landings accumulated on each main landing gear radius rod mounting
shaft assembly or within 1,000 landings after January 11, 2011 (the
effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.
    (3) After replacing each main landing gear radius rod mounting
shaft assembly as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD,
repetitively thereafter replace each assembly with an airworthy
assembly at intervals not to exceed the following life limits:
    (i) For Model Jetstream Series 3101: Within 38,220 total
landings; and
    (ii) For Model Jetstream Model 3201: Within 31,038 total
landings.
    (4) For operators that do not have landing records, determine
the number of landings by multiplying the number of hours time-in-
service (TIS) accumulated on each main landing gear radius rod
mounting shaft assembly by 0.75. For the purpose of this AD:
    (i) 1,000 landings equals 1,333 hours TIS;
    (ii) 31,038 landings equals 41,384 hours TIS; and
    (iii) 38,220 landings equals 50,960 hours TIS.
    (5) Compliance with the life limits set in paragraph (f)(3) of
this AD may be done by incorporating these limits into the
limitations section of the aircraft maintenance manual. You may do
this by inserting a copy of this

AD into the limitations section of aircraft maintenance manual.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2010-0162, dated August 4, 2010; BAE Systems British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 05-JA090143, dated
April 30, 2009; and British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British
Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA990142,
dated March 26, 1999, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use BAE Systems British Aerospace Jetstream Series
3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 05-JA090143, dated April 30, 2009; and
British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream
Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA990142, dated March 26,
1999, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
telephone +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 23, 2010.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30197 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 60232]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21446]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-057, OMB Control No. 3235-0057]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Regulation 14C
(Commission Rules 14c-1 Through 14c-7 and Schedule 14C)

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') operates to require issuers that do not solicit
proxies or consents from any or all of the holders of record of a class
of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act and in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed under Section
14(a) in connection with a meeting of security holders (including
action by consent) to distribute to any holders that were not solicited
an information statement substantially equivalent to the information
that would be required to be transmitted if a proxy or consent
solicitation were made. Regulation 14C (Exchange Act Rules 14c-1
through 14c-7 and Schedule 14C) (17 CFR 240.14c-1 through 240.14c-7 and
240.14c-101) sets forth the requirements for the dissemination, content
and filing of the information statement. We estimate that Schedule 14C
takes approximately 129.1575 hours per response and will be filed by
approximately 569 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 75%
of the 129.1575 hours per response (96.8681 hours) is prepared by the
issuer for an annual reporting burden of 55,118 hours (96.8681 hours
per response x 569 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by December 5, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: September 28, 2022
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21446 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48137-48139]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18530]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0144; FRL-8315-02-OCSPP]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations,
voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of
the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II, pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This
cancellation order follows a February 9, 2021 Federal Register Notice
of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 3 of Unit
II to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the February
9, 2021 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing
the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments
within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further review
of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests.
The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the
registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby
issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested
cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject
to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the
terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective August 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Registration
Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all

the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0144, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by
registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C.
136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration
number in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

                                         Table 1--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Registration No.                Company No.          Product name             Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100-1117................................             100  Touchdown Herbicide.......  Glyphosate.
100-1121................................             100  Touchdown Pro Herbicide...  Glyphosate.
100-1122................................             100  Touchdown Liquid            Glyphosate.
                                                           Concentrate.
100-1157................................             100  Touchdown CF Herbicide....  Glycine, N-
                                                                                (phosphonomethyl)-,
                                                                                diammonium salt.
100-1179................................             100  Touchdown Diquat Home and   Diquat dibromide &
                                                           Garden Concentrate.         Glyphosate.
100-1182................................             100  Touchdown Hitech Herbicide  Glycine, N-
                                                                                (phosphonomethyl)-
                                                                                potassium salt.
100-1212................................             100  Touchdown CT Herbicide....  Glycine, N-
                                                                                (phosphonomethyl)-
                                                                                potassium salt.
100-1362................................             100  Refuge Herbicide..........  Glycine, N-
                                                                                (phosphonomethyl)-
                                                                                potassium salt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II,
requested the effective date of the cancellations to be November 02,
2020.

                                         Table 2--Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Registration No.                Company No.          Product name             Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
241-343.................................             241  Tri-4 HF Herbicide........  Trifluralin.
7969-88.................................            7969  Poast Plus Herbicide......  Sethoxydim.
7969-194................................            7969  Rezult Herbicide..........  Sethoxydim.
7969-277................................            7969  BAS 800 02/03 Powered by    Saflufenacil.
                                                           Kixor Herbicide.
7969-294................................            7969  Sethoxydim Manufacturer's   Sethoxydim.
                                                           Use Product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first
part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1
and Table 2 of this unit.

               Table 3--Registrants of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          EPA company No.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100...............................  Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410
                                     Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300,
                                     Greensboro, NC 27419-8300.
241...............................  BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive,
                                     P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle
                                     Park, NC 27709-3528.
7969..............................  BASF Corporation, Agricultural
                                     Products Division, 26 Davis Drive,
                                     P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle
                                     Park, NC 27709-3528.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the February 9, 2021 Federal Register notice announcing
the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations of
products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby
approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in
Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders
that the product registrations identified in Table 1 and Table 2 of
Unit II are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are
the subject of this notice is August 27, 2021. Any distribution, sale,
or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 and
Table 2 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions
for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a
violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time

request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended
to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before
acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such
request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public
comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The
notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the
Federal Register of February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8779) (FRL-10016-16). The
comment period closed on August 9, 2021.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products
subject to this order are as follows.
    For products 100-1117, 100-1121, 100-1122, 100-1157, 100-1179, 100-
1182, 100-1212 and 100-1362 listed in Table 1 of Unit II, the
registrant has requested the effective date of the cancellations to be
November 02, 2020; therefore, the registrant will be permitted to sell
and distribute existing stocks of this product until November 02, 2021.
Thereafter, the registrant will be prohibited from selling or
distributing the product in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export
consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper
disposal.
    For all other voluntary product cancellations, listed in Table 2 of
Unit II, the registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing
stocks of products listed in Table 2 of Unit II until August 29, 2022,
which is 1 year after the date of publication of the Cancellation Order
in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited
from selling or distributing products listed in Table 2, except for
export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper
disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or
use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit
II until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale,
distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously
approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 20, 2021.
Catherine Aubee,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-18530 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18881-18882]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08113]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0542; A-1-FRL-9952-92-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; General Permit To Limit Potential
To Emit From Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut. The intended effect of this action is to approve
into the Connecticut SIP the provisions of Connecticut's ``General
Permit to Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution'' (GPLPE) as they apply to the restriction of emissions of
criteria pollutants for which EPA has established national ambient air
quality standards. Separately, we are also approving the provisions of
the GPLPE as it applies to the restriction of emissions of hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs). The State issued the GPLPE on November 9, 2015.
The permit imposes legally and practicably enforceable emissions
limitations restricting eligible sources' potential to emit air
pollutants. Such restrictions would generally allow eligible sources to
avoid having to comply with reasonably available control technology
(RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V
operating permit requirements, or other requirements that apply only to
major stationary sources. This action is being taken in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2016-0542 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response
to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 10, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-08113 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P