[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20909-20913]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 358

[Docket No. RM07-1-002; Order No. 717-C]

Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers

Issued April 16, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order on Rehearing and Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued
Order No. 717-A to address requests for rehearing and make clearer the
Standards of Conduct as implemented by Order No. 717. The Commission
issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited requests for rehearing and
clarification concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A and whether an
employee who is not making business decisions about contract non-price
terms and conditions is considered a ``marketing function employee.''
This order addresses additional requests for rehearing and
clarification concerning Order No. 717-A.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective July 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Tao, Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets, 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, and John R. Norris.

Order on Rehearing and Clarification

I. Introduction

    1. On October 16, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 717
amending the Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers (the
Standards of Conduct or the Standards) to make them clearer and to
refocus the rules on the areas where there is the greatest potential
for abuse.\1\ On October 15, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-
A to address requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 717,
largely affirming the reforms adopted in Order No. 717.\2\ On November
16, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited
requests for rehearing and clarification concerning paragraph 80 of
Order No. 717-A and whether an employee who is not making business
decisions about contract non-price terms and conditions is considered a
``marketing function employee.'' \3\ In this order, the Commission
grants additional clarification concerning matters petitioners raised
regarding the Commission's determinations in Order No. 717-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280
(2008) (Order No. 717).
    \2\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717-A, 74 FR 54463 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,297
(2009) (Order No. 717-A).
    \3\  Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717-B, 74 FR 60153 (Nov. 20, 2009), 129 FERC ] 61,123 (Nov. 16,
2009) (Order No. 717-B). On October 30, 2009, EEI filed a request
for expedited clarification of a single issue addressed in Order No.
717-A. The Commission determined that it should address this issue
expeditiously even though the time allowed under the regulations for
filing rehearing requests had not yet expired. For this reason, the
Commission issued Order No. 717-B on November 16, 2009, in which it
addressed a single clarification request of EEI, Western Utilities,
Otter Tail and Central Vermont. All other timely requests for
rehearing, i.e. those filed by November 16, 2009, are addressed in
this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requests for Clarification and/or Rehearing

    2. Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Transmission Dependent Utility
Systems (TDUS), Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Associated Electric
Cooperative (AEC), Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric),
Xcel Energy Services (Xcel), E.ON U.S., Avista Corporation (Avista),
the American Public Gas Association (APGA) and Western Utilities \4\
filed requests for clarification, or in the alternative, requests for
rehearing. The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-
State) filed in support of the NRECA's request. The Electric Power
Supply Association (EPSA) filed a motion for leave to answer and an
answer to Western Utilities' request for clarification and
rehearing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Western Utilities is comprised of Arizona Public Service
Company, Avista Corporation, El Paso Electric Company, Idaho Power
Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PacifiCorp, Portland
General Electric Company, Puget Sound Energy, Southern California
Edison Company, and Tucson Electric Power Company.
    \5\ EPSA objects to Western Utilities' characterization of its
filing as a request for clarification.

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

III. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

    3. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure \6\ prohibits an answer to a request for rehearing unless
otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We will accept the
EPSA's answer to Western Utilities' motion for clarification and/or
request for rehearing because it provided information that assisted us
in our decision-making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Independent Functioning Rule

i. Transmission Function Employees
    4. In paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission clarified
that personnel engaged in granting or denying transmission service
requests are transmission function employees because the act of
granting or denying transmission service requests is an integral part
of ``planning, directing, organizing or carrying out of day-to-day
transmission operations.'' \7\ The Commission then elaborated in this
paragraph that the term ``transmission function employee'' includes
``an employee responsible for performing system impact studies or
determining whether the transmission system can support the requested
services as this type of employee is planning, directing, organizing or
carrying out the day-to-day transmission operations.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Order No. 717-A at P 27.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    5. EEI, Western Utilities, Xcel, Avista and Basin Electric argue
that paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A overruled paragraph 147 of Order
No. 717 in which the Commission stated that so long as the preparation
of system impact studies ``do[es] not implicate the day-to-day
operation of the transmission system, they are not transmission
functions.'' \9\ The parties request that the Commission reconsider its
statement in Order No. 717-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 717 at P 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Western Utilities argues that in many instances, system impact
studies have nothing to do with day-to-day operations of the
transmission system. Western Utilities states that some studies are
used to assess whether any additional costs may be incurred in order to
provide the requested transmission service. Western Utilities further
states that where such studies are required, they trigger the process
for determining the modifications needed to provide the service at some
future date and, thus, are not day-to-day transmission operations.
Western Utilities requests that the Commission clarify that studies
related to determining the upgrades necessary to the transmission
system to provide service, including system impact studies, do not
qualify as Transmission Function activities, because they fall under
the category of ``long-range planning.''
    7. EPSA responds to Western Utilities' argument by stating that
transmission system impact studies do have an impact on day-to-day
transmission operations as these studies provide significant insight
into non-public development plans of market participants and
opportunities for additional investments and that these studies are a
core function of transmission providers.
    8. Avista states that studies related to interconnection requests,
which identify interconnection facilities needed to interconnect a new
generator as an energy resource or network resource, do not convey any
rights to deliver electricity to any specific customer or point of
delivery and do not implicate the day-to-day operation of the
transmission system.
    9. In the event that the Commission does not grant the requested
clarification, Basin Electric asks the Commission to extend the date
for compliance with paragraph 27 to 90 days after the date of this
order.
    Commission Determination:
    10. We deny the requests to reconsider paragraph 27 in Order No.
717-A. The Commission finds that paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A is not
inconsistent with the Commission's findings in paragraph 147 of Order
No. 717. In essence, certain protestors argue that the Commission's
finding in Order No. 717-A that a ``transmission function employee''
includes an employee responsible for performing system impact studies
is inconsistent with the Commission's finding in Order No. 717 that so
long as the preparation of system impact studies ``do[es[ not implicate
the day-to-day operation of the transmission system, they are not
transmission functions.'' \10\ In order to reconcile these seemingly
inconsistent statements, these Commission findings must be viewed in
the context of the protestors' requests for clarification.
Specifically, in Order No. 717 and Order No. 717-A, the Commission
determined whether system impact studies performed pursuant to narrowly
described fact scenarios would lead to a grant or denial of
transmission service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. See also Order No. 717-A at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In paragraph 147 of Order No. 717, we granted a request for
clarification from Idaho Power Company that asked whether long-range
planning functions such as integrated resource planning and preparation
of system impact studies are transmission functions. The Commission
stated that ``so long as these activities do not implicate the day-to-
day operation of the transmission system, they are not transmission
functions.'' \11\ Thus, Order No. 717 responded to a narrow request for
clarification concerning integrated resource planning and the conduct
of system impact studies for long-range planning.\12\ The Commission
did not state in Order No. 717 that the conduct of system impact
studies is at all times a long-range planning function, but only
recognized that, in some cases, the preparation of system impact
studies might not implicate the day-to-day operation of the
transmission system. The protestors are simply incorrect in their
assertion that the Commission found in Order No. 717 that preparation
of a system impact study can never be considered a transmission
function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 717 at P 147.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Similarly, in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission
granted another narrow request for clarification, which asked whether
transmission function employees include just the employees who post on
the OASIS that a particular request has been granted or denied or also
those employees who are responsible for performing the underlying
system impact studies or otherwise determining whether the transmission
system can support the requested services.\13\ In response, the
Commission first clarified that personnel engaged in granting or
denying transmission service requests are transmission function
employees because the act of granting or denying transmission service
requests is an integral part of ``planning, directing, organizing or
carrying out of day-to-day transmission operations'' \14\ and then
elaborated, in response to the second part of the clarification request
that the term ``transmission function employee'' includes an employee
responsible for performing system impact studies or determining whether
the transmission system can support the requested services because the
act of granting or denying transmission service requests is an integral
part of ``carrying out of day-to-day transmission operations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Order No. 717-A at P 26.
    \14\ Id. P 27.
    \15\ Id.

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

    13. While the language in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A could
have been more artfully worded, the Commission in this paragraph
intended to clarify that, in the context of an employee conducting a
system impact study to determine whether a transmission system can
support a transmission service request, such an employee's act of
performing a system impact study would necessarily classify that
employee as a ``transmission function employee.'' The Commission
intended the clarification in this paragraph to apply only to the
situation in which an employee conducts a system impact study to
determine whether a transmission system can support a transmission
service request, and not to every situation in which an employee
conducts a system impact study.
    14. In making the clarification in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A,
the Commission focused on the Sec.  358.3(h) definition of
``transmission function'' as the ``* * * carrying out of day-to-day
transmission operations, including the granting and denying of
transmission service requests.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. EEI argues that ``it is the tests that determine whether
transmission is available, not the testers.'' \17\ As such, EEI
contends that performing a system impact study is not day-to-day
control over the operation of the transmission system.\18\ While a
``tester'' may not make the determination to grant or deny transmission
service, EEI's argument ignores the fact that it is the knowledge that
an employee obtains while conducting a system impact study in response
to a transmission service request that could be used to favor an
affiliate over its competition. For this reason, we find that a
``tester'' who grants and denies transmission service requests by
disclosing the results of a test is engaging in ``transmission
functions'' as defined in Sec.  358.3(h).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EEI Nov. 16, 2009 Request for Clarification at 4.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. However, we clarify that a system impact study performed
pursuant to a request for energy resource interconnection service or
network resource interconnection service is similar to long-range
planning and therefore not a transmission function, because the focus
of such a study is to determine the impact of the proposed
interconnection on the safety and reliability of the transmission
provider's transmission system, but without conveying a right to
transmission service.\20\ Accordingly, we find that the performance of
a system impact study in the context of evaluating an energy resource
interconnection service and network resource interconnection service is
not a transmission function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,146 (2003) (Order No. 2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,160, order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,171 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of
Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007);
see also Notice Clarifying Compliance Procedures, 106 FERC ] 61,009
(2004). In Order No. 2003 at P 767, the Commission stated the
following: ``Both Energy Resource Interconnection Service and
Network Resource Interconnection Service provide for the
construction of Network Upgrades that would allow the
Interconnection Customer to flow the output of its Generating
Facility onto the Transmission Provider's Transmission System in a
safe and reliable manner. However, * * * neither Energy Resource
Interconnection Service nor Network Resource Interconnection Service
in and of itself conveys the right to do so. Moreover, neither type
of Interconnection Service constitutes a reservation of transmission
capacity. The Interconnection Customer, load or other market
participant would have to request either point-to-point or Network
Integration Transmission Service under the Transmission Provider's
OATT in order to receive the delivery service that is a prerequisite
to flowing power onto the system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Similarly, we find that the performance of a system impact
study that is not a part of day-to-day transmission operations and
performed solely to determine the transmission system upgrades
necessary to provide service is a part of long-range planning.
Accordingly, we clarify that a system impact study performed solely to
assess what, if any, additional costs may be incurred in order to
provide transmission service is not a transmission function so long as
the performance of this system impact study is not carried out as part
of day-to-day transmission operations, including the granting or
denying of transmission service.
    18. In light of the Commission's denial of the requests to
reconsider paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission grants Basin
Electric's request to extend the date of compliance with paragraph 27
of Order No. 717-A to ninety (90) days after the date of this order.
ii. Marketing Functions
    19. In Order No. 717-A, we clarified in paragraph 40 that ``if an
employee of a generation and transmission cooperative simply serves
retail load and does not engage in activities included in the
`marketing functions' definition in Sec.  358.3, then this employee is
not a `marketing function employee'.''
    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    20. TAPS requests clarification that a generation and transmission
cooperative's sales to its distribution cooperative members and a
municipal joint action agency's sales to its municipal distribution
utility members are analogous to a vertically integrated utility's
retail sales function and, therefore, the employees of a generation and
transmission cooperative, as well as the employees of a municipal joint
action agency are not ``marketing function'' employees for the purposes
of the Standards of Conduct. Similarly, TDUS, NRECA, Tri-State, AEC and
Basin Electric request clarification that wholesale sales of electric
energy and capacity by generation and transmission electric
cooperatives to their distribution cooperative members do not fall
within the scope of marketing functions. TAPS argues that paragraph 40
of Order No. 717-A creates ambiguity. TAPS states that generation and
transmission cooperatives are not technically ``serv[ing] retail
load.'' TAPS further argues that because generation and transmission
cooperatives are engaged in functions almost identical to serving
retail load, there is an ambiguity between what it thinks the
Commission intended to state and the language in Order No. 717-A.
    Commission Determination:
    21. We will grant the requested clarification regarding generation
and transmission cooperatives. In Order No. 888-A, the Commission
clarified that if a distribution cooperative sought open access
transmission service from a Transmission Provider, only that specific
distribution cooperative, not its member distribution cooperatives,
would be required to offer transmission service. The Commission
determined that generation and transmission cooperatives were not
affiliates of their distribution cooperatives for purposes of
application of the ``reciprocal transmission requirement'' of Order No.
888.\21\ Subsequently, in Order No. 2004-A, we stated that generation
and transmission cooperatives are not subject to the Standards of
Conduct consistent with the policies established under Order No.
888.\22\ We find that the adoption of the employee functional approach
in the Standards of Conduct does not warrant a change in our treatment
of G&T cooperatives. Therefore, we clarify that sales of power by
generation and transmission

cooperatives to their member generation and transmission cooperatives
or to their member distribution cooperatives do not constitute
marketing functions under the Standards of Conduct. Similarly, a
municipal joint action agency, which is a public agency that provides
power to its municipal member-owners, does not perform a marketing
function when selling power to those members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles
July 1996-December 2000 ] 31,048 at 30,366.
    \22\ Order No. 2004-A at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Marketing Function Employees
    22. In paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission stated the
following:

    The Commission clarifies that an employee in the legal, finance
or regulatory division of a jurisdictional entity, whose
intermittent day-to-day duties include the drafting and redrafting
of non-price terms and conditions of, or exemptions to, umbrella
agreements is a ``marketing function employee.'' ``Marketing
functions'' are not limited to only price terms and conditions of a
contract, because non-price terms and conditions of a contract could
contain information that an affiliate could use to its advantage.
For example, delivery or hub locations in a contract are non-price
terms that could be used to favor an affiliate. In addition,
negotiated terms and conditions could affect the substantive rights
of the parties. For this reason, we decline to make a generic
finding to limit ``marketing functions'' to only price terms and
conditions, but will consider waiver requests concerning an employee
whose intermittent duties involve drafting non-price terms and
conditions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 717-A at P 80.

    23. In Order No. 717-B, the Commission granted limited rehearing
and clarification to address expedited clarification requests regarding
paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A. Specifically, the Commission stated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the following:

    The Commission clarifies that the language in paragraph 80 of
Order No. 717-A was overly broad. The Commission further clarifies
that we intended to state in paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A that an
employee making business decisions about non-price terms and
conditions can be considered a ``marketing function employee''
because that employee is actively and personally engaged in
marketing functions. However, an employee who simply drafts or
redrafts a contract, including non-price terms and conditions,
without making business decisions is not a ``marketing function
employee.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Order No. 717-B at P 6.

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    24. Several additional parties have requested clarification
regarding paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A since the issuance of Order
No. 717-B, but have raised the same issues as those addressed in Order
No. 717-B. Xcel also requests clarification that enterprise risk
management employees may provide risk management services to both the
wholesale sales function and the transmission function of a vertically
integrated and/or combination utility, subject to the No Conduit Rule,
and consistent with Order No. 717.
    Commission Determination:
    25. Since the Commission has already addressed the arguments
concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A in Order No. 717-B, we find
that the requests for clarification regarding paragraph 80 of Order No.
717-A have been rendered moot. Similarly, we also find that the
Commission's determinations in Order No. 717-B render Xcel's request
for clarification moot. Xcel's concern regarding the application of the
Standards of Conduct to its risk management employees stems from its
interpretation of paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A. However, in Order
No. 717-B, the Commission clarified that it did not intend to depart
from the conclusions in paragraph 131 of Order No. 717. In paragraph
131, which the Commission reiterated in Order No. 717-B, we expressly
stated that ``a risk management employee may develop risk guidelines
for both transmission function employees and marketing function
employees.'' \25\ Accordingly, the Commission finds that these requests
for rehearing concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A have been
rendered moot.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 717 at P 131.
    \26\ We note that risk management employees remain subject to
the No Conduit Rule, and are prohibited from providing transmission
function information to marketing function employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Long-Range Planning, Procurement and Other Interactions
    26. In Order No. 717-A, the Commission stated that ``meetings
including both transmission function and marketing function employees
are not barred under the Standards of Conduct as long as the meetings
do not relate to transmission or marketing functions.'' \27\ The
Commission also noted that the No Conduit Rule \28\ still applies to
these meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Order No. 717-A at P 89.
    \28\ 18 CFR 358.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    27. E.ON U.S. is concerned that paragraph 89 and paragraph 90 of
Order No. 717-A could act as a blanket prohibition on any meeting or
communication between marketing and transmission function employees in
which non-public transmission function information is discussed. E.ON
U.S. requests clarification that the Commission did not eliminate
certain exemptions in Sec.  358.7 or the meetings in which information
shared under these exemptions occurs. Specifically, E.ON U.S. notes the
``specific transaction information'' exemption in Sec.  358.7(b); \29\
the exemption allowing discussion of compliance information relating to
Reliability Standards approved by the Commission in Sec.
358.7(h)(2)(i); \30\ and the exemption allowing discussion of
information necessary to restore operation of the transmission system
or that may affect dispatch of generating units in Sec.
358.7(h)(2)(ii).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 18 CFR 358.7(b).
    \30\ 18 CFR 358.7(h)(2)(i).
    \31\ 18 CFR 358.7(h)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Determination:
    28. We grant E.ON U.S.'s request for clarification and confirm that
the Commission did not intend to limit or eliminate the exemptions in
Sec.  358.7. We note that employees remain subject to the No Conduit
Rule, and are prohibited from providing transmission function
information to marketing function employees.
v. Seller's Own Production or Gathering or Processing Facilities
    29. In Order No. 717-A, the Commission denied the request of APGA
to eliminate the exclusion for sales of natural gas solely from a
seller's own production and from a seller's own gathering or processing
facilities from the definition of ``marketing function.'' \32\ The
Commission also noted that section 4 of the Natural Gas Act prohibits a
pipeline from granting any undue preference or advantage to any person
or subjecting any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Order No. 717-A at PP 55-58.
    \33\ Id. P 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Request for Clarification or Rehearing:
    30. APGA requests that the Commission clarify that, notwithstanding
any exemption from the Standards of Conduct, a natural gas transmission
provider's disclosure of non-public transmission function information
to its gas sales employees or those affiliated producers, gatherers and
processors constitutes the granting of an ``undue preference or
advantage'' under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. APGA argues that
``the Commission is obligated under the Act `to prevent discrimination
against shippers who must depend on monopolistic pipelines for
transportation,' and the disclosure of non-public transmission function
information by pipelines to their sales employees and those of its
affiliates clearly constitutes improper favoritism.'' Accordingly, APGA
asks that if the

Commission declines to grant the requested clarification, then it
should grant rehearing on this issue and on rehearing amend Order No.
717-A to state that such disclosure is unlawful.
    Commission Determination:
    31. We deny APGA's request for clarification or rehearing of Order
No. 717-A. The Commission previously denied APGA's request for
rehearing in Order No. 717-A and affirmed the adoption of the exclusion
in Order No. 717. Now, for the first time, APGA asks that the
Commission adopt a per se rule that, notwithstanding any exclusion, a
natural gas transmission provider's disclosure of non-public
transmission function information to its gas sales employees or its
affiliated producers, gatherers and processors constitutes the granting
of an ``undue preference or advantage'' under section 4 of the Natural
Gas Act. As an initial matter, we note that APGA raises this request
for rehearing for the first time in this proceeding. We have held
repeatedly that it is inappropriate for a protestor to raise new issues
in a request for rehearing because this practice is disruptive to the
administrative process and denies parties the opportunity to
respond.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 91 FERC ] 61,270, at
61,922 (2000); Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 92 FERC ] 61,043,
at 61,114 (2000); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 97
FERC ] 61,006, at 61,015 (2001); Carolina Power & Light Company, 106
FERC ] 61,141, at P 15 (2004); CARE v. Calpine Energy Services, LP,
107 FERC ] 61,238, at P 7 (2004); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 126 FERC
] 61,030, at P 15 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. We also find that APGA's request for clarification or rehearing
is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Although APGA describes its
filing as a request for clarification or rehearing of Order No. 717-A,
in fact, APGA requests that the Commission clarify section 4 of the
Natural Gas Act.\35\ The appropriate forum to raise this request for an
interpretation of section 4 of the Natural Gas Act would be in either a
complaint proceeding or a petition for declaratory order. Accordingly,
we deny APGA's request for clarification or rehearing in this
proceeding concerning section 4 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  717c (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Although we deny APGA's request for rehearing and
clarification, we note that the exclusion must be read in the context
of the whole of the Standards of Conduct. For example, section 358.2(a)
of the Commission's regulations specifies that ``A transmission
provider must treat all transmission customers, affiliated and non-
affiliated, on a non-discriminatory basis and must not make or grant
any undue preference or advantage to any person or subject any person
to any undue prejudice or disadvantage with respect to any
transportation of natural gas. * * *'', while section 358.2(d) further
provides that ``A transmission provider must provide equal access to
non-public transmission function information to all its transmission
customers, affiliated and non-affiliated, except in the case of
confidential customer information or Critical Energy Infrastructure
Information.''

IV. Document Availability

    34. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC'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.
    35. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on 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 the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    36. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
V. Effective Date

    37. Changes to Order No. 717-A adopted in this order on rehearing
and clarification are effective July 21, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9264 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64817-64819]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0332]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana Harbor Canal, East
Chicago, IN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is altering the operating schedule that
governs the Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal at East Chicago, Indiana. Indiana Department of
Transportation, the owner and operator of the bridge, has requested to
stop continual drawtender service to the bridge due to a lack of
openings.

DATES: This rule is effective December 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2021-0332 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' In the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email: Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985
INDOT Indiana Department of Transportation
LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 28, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indiana
Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN,'' in the Federal Register (86 FR
40388). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to this regulatory change.
During the comment period that ended on September 27, 2021, we did not
receive any comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana
Harbor Canal is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a horizontal
clearance of 68-feet and a vertical clearance of 12-feet in the closed
position with an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position
based on low water datum (LWD). The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile
2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal is required to open on signal, and
there are no previous rulemakings for this bridge to discuss. The
Indiana Harbor Canal is a 3-mile long commercial waterway that serves
several industries near the City of East Chicago, Indiana, including
the largest integrated steelmaking facility in North America and the
1,400 acre Whiting Refinery that includes the site of the former 1889
Standard Oil of

Indiana refinery at the head of navigation. The Indianapolis Boulevard
Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal is the last drawbridge
before the head of navigation. Once the 1889 Standard Oil of Indiana
refinery was torn down the bridge lost its purpose for regular
openings, and the waterway silted in around the bridge preventing
vessels from approaching. Approximately thirty years after the removal
of the refinery, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) partnered to remove polluted
sediments form the waterway and established a contaminated dredge
spoils area above the bridge. The EPA and USACE contracted dredging
company is working a few weeks each season and is the only commercial
vessel requesting the bridge to open. There are no records of
recreational vessels using the Indiana Harbor Canal.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 60 days and no
comments were received.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small
Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.400, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.400   Indiana Harbor Canal.

* * * * *
    (c) The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, mile 2.59, at East Chicago,
shall open on signal if at least twelve hours' notice is given.

M.J. Johnston.
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2021-25268 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2248-2251]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00528]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82471; File No. SR- CboeBYX-2017-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for the BYX Depth Market Data Product

January 9, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 27, 2017, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and

III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing
a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to introduce new fees for Non-Display Usage of BYX
Depth.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to introduce new fees for Non-Display Usage \5\ of BYX Depth.
BYX Depth is an uncompressed market data feed that provides depth-of-
book quotations and execution information based on equity orders
entered into the System.\6\ The Exchange currently charges subscribers
to BYX Depth a fee of $2,000 per month for Non-Display Usage of BYX
Depth by its Trading Platforms.\7\ Non-Display Usage is defined as
``any method of accessing a Market Data product that involves access or
use by a machine or automated device without access or use of a display
by a natural person or persons.'' \8\ Trading Platforms include
registered National Securities Exchanges, Alternative Trading Systems
(``ATSs''), and Electronic Communications Networks (``ECNs'') as those
terms are defined in the Exchange Act and regulations and rules
thereunder. Previously, subscribers of BYX Depth that used the feed for
Non-Display purposes but did not utilize the feed within a Trading
Platform were charged the existing Distributors fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(a).
    \7\ A Trading Platform is defined as ``any execution platform
operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange (as
defined in Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act), an Alternative
Trading System (as defined in Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS), or an
Electronic Communications Network (as defined in Rule 600(b)(23) of
Regulation NMS).'' See the Exchange's fee schedule available at
http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \8\ See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Forms of Non-Display Use include, but are not limited to,
algorithmic or automated trading, order routing, surveillance, order
management, risk management, clearance and settlement activities, and
account maintenance.\9\ Non-Display Usage does not include any use of
BYX Depth that relates solely to transportation, dissemination, and
redistribution of BYX Depth, or that results in the output of BYX Depth
solely for display. Non-display uses of data for non-trading purposes
benefits data recipients by allowing users to automate functions, to
achieve greater speed and accuracy, and to reduce costs of labor. While
some non-trading uses do not directly generate revenues, they can
substantially reduce a data recipient's costs by automating many
functions. Those functions can be carried out in a more efficient and
accurate manner, with reduced errors and labor costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Nasdaq Rule IM-7023-1(c), U.S. Non-Display
Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adopt a separate fee of $1,000 per
month to cover other forms of Non-Display Usage other than through a
Trading Platform.\10\ The proposed fee would be assessed in addition to
existing Distributor \11\ fees and would supplement the existing Non-
Display Usage fee for Trading Platforms. Specifically, subscribers who
are subject to the Non-Display Usage by Trading Platform fee but also
utilize BYX Depth for other Non-Display purposes would be subject to
both fees. However, subscribers who utilize BYX Depth for other Non-
Display purposes and not within a Trading Platform would be subject
only to the proposed fee for Non-Display Use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to the
description of the BYX Depth Enterprise Fee to remove the word
``External'' before ``Distributor'' in the first and second
sentences. This amendment does not change the application of the
Enterprise Fee as the Exchange previously filed a proposed rule
change to offer the Enterprise fee to both Internal and External
Distributors. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79623
(December 20, 2016), 81 FR 95226 (December 27, 2016) (SR-BatsBYX-
2016-39).
    \11\ A ``Distributor'' is defined as ``any entity that receives
the Exchange Market Data product directly from the Exchange or
indirectly through another entity and then distributes it internally
or externally to a third party.'' See the Exchange's fee schedule
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain subscribers that use an Exchange approved Managed Non-
Display Service Provider would be exempt from proposed Non-Display
Usage Fee. To be approved as Managed Non-Display Service Provider, the
Distributor must host subscriber's applications that utilize BYX Depth
must within the Managed Non-Display Service Provider's space/cage;
fully manage and control access to BYX Depth, and not permit further
redistribution of the Exchange Data internally or externally.\12\ In
order to qualify for the exemption, the subscriber must meet the
following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76900 at fn.
8 (January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3506 (January 21, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-
02). In this filing, the NYSE discontinued fees related to managed
non-display for NYSE OpenBook. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any subscriber applications that utilize BYX Depth must be
hosted within the Managed Non-Display Service Provider's space/cage;
     the subscriber's access to BYX Depth is fully managed and
controlled by the Managed Non-Display Service Provider, and no further
redistribution of the Exchange Data internally or externally is
permitted; and
     the subscriber is supported solely by one Managed Non-
Display Service Provider, is not hosted by multiple Managed Non-Display
Service Providers, and does not have their own data center-hosted
environment that also receives BYX Depth.
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fee changes on
January 2, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is

designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \15\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\16\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's subscribers will be
subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis. BYX Depth is
distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the
Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or
regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and
Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due
to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a
wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges
and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make
any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
BYX Depth further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when subscribers
can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other
exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data
products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to
consolidate and distribute its similar product than the Exchange
charges to consolidate and distribute BYX Depth, prospective Users
likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to, BYX
Depth.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Non-Display fee for usage other than through a Trading
Platform for BYX Depth is equitable and reasonable as the Exchange
believes the proposed fee represents the value of the data provided by
the feed and its use by market participants. The proposed fee changes
reflects changing trends in the ways in which the industry uses market
data. The proposed fee comport with the proliferation of the use of
data for various non-display purposes and by non-display trading
applications. It recognizes industry changes that have evolved as a
result of numerous technological advances, the advent of trading
algorithms and automated trading, different investment patterns, a
plethora of new securities products, unprecedented levels of trading,
decimalization, internationalization and developments in portfolio
analysis and securities research. The Exchange believes the proposed
fee reflects the value of the data provided.
    The Exchange notes that fees for non-display use have become
commonplace in the industry. Several exchanges impose them as does the
UTP, CTA/CQ, and OPRA Plans. In addition, the fee proposed is less than
similar fees currently charged by other exchanges for their depth-of-
book data products. For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and
the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') charge $5,000 and $6,000
per month, respectively, for its depth-of-book data used for non-
display purposes.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the non-display fees for NYSE OpenBook and NYSE
ArcaBook in the NYSE and NYSE Arca fee schedules available at http://www.nyxdata.com/nysedata/default.aspx?tabid=518&folder=207656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee is also equitable and reasonable in that it
ensures that heavy users of the BYX Depth pay an equitable share of the
total fees. Currently, External Distributors pay higher fees than
Internal Distributors based upon their assumed higher usage levels. The
Exchange believes that non-display users are generally high users of
the data, using it to power a trading algorithms and other trading
relates systems for millions or even billions of trading messages per
day.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price BYX Depth is constrained by: (i)
Competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and Trade
Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with each other in a
variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed data; and
(iii) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.

    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, BYX Depth competes with a number of alternative
products. For instance, BYX Depth does not provide a complete picture
of all trading activity in a security. Rather, the other national
securities exchanges, the several TRFs of FINRA, and ECNs that produce
proprietary data all produce trades and trade reports. Each is
currently permitted to produce depth-of-book information products, and
many currently do, including Nasdaq, NYSE, and NYSE Arca.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on Exchange data
products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to BYX Depth, including
existing similar feeds by other exchanges, consolidated data, and
proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot
set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory,
when subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase
a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not
justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would
achieve through the purchase.
    The Exchange believes the adoption of the fee for Non-Display Usage
for BYX Depth would increase competition amongst the exchanges that
offer depth-of-book products. In addition, the proposed Non-Display
Usage fee is less than similar fees currently charged by the NYSE and
NYSE Arca for their depth-of-book data.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number CboeBYX-2017-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number CboeBYX-2017-003 and should be submitted on
or before February 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00528 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 3311]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9958-17-Region 3]

Notice of Tentative Approval and Opportunity for Public Comment
and Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revision
for West Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for public
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of West Virginia is
revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. West
Virginia has adopted drinking water regulations for the Revised Total
Coliform Rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined that West Virginia's Revised Total Coliform Rule meets all
minimum federal requirements, and that it is no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulation. Therefore, EPA has tentatively
decided to approve the State program revisions.

DATES: Comments or a public hearing must be submitted by February 10,
2017. This determination shall become final and effective on February
10, 2017 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is
received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a
hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause
EPA to modify its tentative approval.

ADDRESSES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. All documents relating to this
determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
     Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
     West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources,
Environmental Engineering Division, 350 Capitol Street, Room 313,
Charleston, West Virginia 25301-3713.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Moran, Drinking Water Branch
(3WP21) at the Philadelphia address given above, via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All interested parties are invited to submit
written comments on this determination and may request a hearing. All
comments will be considered, and if necessary EPA will issue a
response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing will be
denied by the Regional Administrator. If a substantial request for a
public hearing is made by February 10, 2017, a public hearing will be
held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or
other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the
requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and of information that the requesting person intends to
submit at such hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making
the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or
other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the
organization or other entity.

    Dated: December 28, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-00449 Filed 1-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9859-9862]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03172]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0641; FRL-10017-26]

Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
clopyralid in or on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, the bulb onion
subgroup 3-07A, and intermediate wheatgrass bran, forage, germ, grain,
middling, shorts, and straw. Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 17, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 19, 2021, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0641, 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>.
    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.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document

applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0641 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 19, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0641, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 15, 2020 (85 FR 20910) (FRL-10006-
54), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E8794) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540. The petition requested that EPA establish tolerances in 40
CFR 180.431 for residues of the herbicide clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-
pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on the raw agricultural commodities
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); Caneberry
subgroup 13-07A at 0.1 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran at 12 ppm;
Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage at 9 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate,
germ at 12 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain at 3 ppm; Wheatgrass,
intermediate, middling at 12 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, shorts at
12 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 9 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Corteva, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for clopyralid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with clopyralid follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings and republishing the same sections is
unnecessary; EPA considers referral back to those sections as
sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered
in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
clopyralid, in which EPA concluded, based on the available information,
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from
aggregate exposure to clopyralid and established tolerances for
residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published
sections from those rulemakings as described further in this
rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological Profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of clopyralid, see Unit III.A. of the May 23, 2018 rulemaking
(83 FR 23819) (FRL-9977-13).
    Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the
safety assessment, see Unit III.B. of the May 23, 2018 rulemaking.
    Exposure Assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains the
same, although updates have occurred to accommodate exposures from the
petitioned-for tolerances. The updates are discussed in this section;
the remaining discussion of EPA's assumptions for exposure remain
unchanged since the 2018 rulemaking. For a description of the rest of
the EPA approach to and assumptions for the exposure assessment, see
Unit III.C. of the May 23, 2018 rulemaking.

    Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA continues to conclude
that there is reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the May
23, 2018 rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that
determination.
    Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure.
    No acute effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
clopyralid; therefore, acute risk is not expected. Chronic dietary
risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD: They
are 30% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population
subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. The short-term MOE is
greater than the Agency's level of concern of 100: It is 1,400 for
children 1 to less than 2 years old, the population group of concern.
Intermediate-term or long-term residential exposures are not expected.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to clopyralid residues. More detailed information
about the Agency's analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
in the document titled ``Clopyralid. Human Health Risk Assessment for a
Proposed Use on Bulb Onion Subgroup (3-07B), Caneberry Subgroup (13-
07A), Wheatgrass, and a Label Amendment for Strawberry'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0641.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume II (PAM II) lists a method
utilizing gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD)
for determination of clopyralid residues in plant commodities (Method I
or Method ACR 75.6).

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). No Codex MRLs have been established for clopyralid.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of clopyralid in
or on the Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.1 ppm; Onion, bulb, subgroup
3-07A at 0.4 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran at 12 ppm; Wheatgrass,
intermediate, forage at 9 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, germ at 12
ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain at 3 ppm; Wheatgrass,
intermediate, middling at 12 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, shorts at
12 ppm; and Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 9 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances and
modifications in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.431, amend paragraph (a) by designating the table and
adding in alphabetical order in newly designated Table 1 to paragraph
(a) the entries ``Caneberry subgroup 13-07A''; ``Onion, bulb, subgroup
3-07A''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran''; ``Wheatgrass,
intermediate, forage''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate, germ'';
``Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate,
middling''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate, shorts''; and ``Wheatgrass,
intermediate, straw'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.431  Clopyralid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...................................         0.1

                                * * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.................................         0.4

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran..............................          12

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage............................           9

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, germ..............................          12

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain.............................           3

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, middling..........................          12

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, shorts............................          12

                                * * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw.............................           9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-03172 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 10907-10908]
[DOCID:fr13mr09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 733-010 Colorado]

Eric Jacobson; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

March 6, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
existing Ouray Hydroelectric Project, located on the Uncompahgre River
in Ouray County, Colorado, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the project. The project currently occupies 4.38 acres of
federal lands in the Uncompahgre National Forest managed by the U.S.
Forest Service.
    The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the project and concludes that licensing the
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may 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, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects.

For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments on this EA should be filed within 30 days of the date
of this notice and should be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 733-010 to all comments.
Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Procedural schedule: Please note that the license application for
this project will be processed according to the following revised Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC issues single environmental       March 6, 2009.
 assessment (EA).
All stakeholders: EA comments due....  April 6, 2009.
All stakeholders: modified terms and   June 5, 2009.
 conditions due.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information, contact Steve Hocking at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5432 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P