UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

 PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:  	8/11/09

SUBJECT:	Flumioxazin.  Acute and Chronic Dietary (Food and Water) Exposure Assessments for the Petition Proposing Tolerances for Residues of Flumioxazin on Fish, Cucurbit Vegetables, Leaf Petioles, and Hops.

Petition #	8F7438 & 8E7462	Decision Number:	402046

DP Number:	367978	MRID No.:	NA

PC Code:	129034	Chemical Class:	N-phenylpthalimide derivative herbicide

40 CFR 180.	568	CAS No.:  	103361-09-7

Regulatory Action:	Section 3 Registration	EPA Reg. No.:  	Clipper( Herbicide (59639-161), Valor™ Herbicide (59639-99), and Chateau™ Herbicide (59639-119)

REVIEWER:	W. Cutchin, Acting Senior Branch Scientist

Alternative Risk Integration and Assessment (ARIA) Team

Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch 			 (RIMUERB)/Registration Division (RD; 7505P)

THROUGH:	D. Rate, Biologist

D. Hrdy, Biologist

DESAC

Health Effects Division (HED; 7505P)

TO:		W. Cutchin, Acting Senior Branch Scientist

ARIA Team

RIMUERB/RD (7505P)

	and

	J. Miller/ D. Rosenblatt

	RIMUERB/RD (7505P)

Executive Summary

The purpose of this memorandum is to report the results of a dietary (food + drinking water) exposure analysis for the herbicide flumioxazin.  In this analysis, the acute and chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates resulting from food and water intake were determined for the general U.S. population and various population subgroups.

D™, Version 2.03) which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  These analyses were performed to support a Section 3 requests (PP#s: 8F7438 & 8E7462) to establish tolerances for residues of flumioxazin on fish, cucurbit vegetables, leaf petioles, and hops.

In calculating dietary risk estimates, ARIA has compared both the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and the chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD) to the respective estimated dietary exposures.  Typically, ARIA has concerns regarding dietary risk when the estimates exceed 100% of the aPAD or cPAD.  With the conservative assumptions noted above, risk estimates associated with dietary exposure to flumioxazin are significantly below ARIA’s level of concern.

Both the acute and chronic exposure analyses were performed assuming tolerance-level residues of flumioxazin for all commodities with existing and ARIA recommended tolerances, empirical processing factors obtained from processing studies (tomatoes) along with DEEM 7.81 default processing factors for the remaining processed commodities, 100% crop treated (CT) and an estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of 0.048 ppm for flumioxazin.

 Acute Dietary (Food + Drinking Water) Exposure Results and Characterization

There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) for the general population or any other population subgroups except females 13-49 years old; therefore, these population subgroups were not included in this assessment.  An acute dietary assessment was conducted only for the population subgroup females 13-49 years old.  For food and drinking water, the exposure to females 13-49 years old utilized 9% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile of exposure distribution.  The acute dietary risk assessment for flumioxazin shows that for all included commodities, the acute dietary risk estimates are below ARIA’s level of concern (i.e. <100% aPAD).

Chronic Dietary (Food + Drinking Water) Exposure Results and Characterization

A chronic dietary assessment was conducted for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups.  For the general U.S. population the exposure for food and drinking water utilized 7% of the cPAD.  The chronic dietary risk estimate for the highest reported exposed population subgroup, all infants (<1 year old), is 19% of the cPAD.

The chronic dietary risk assessment shows that for all included commodities, the chronic dietary risk estimates are below ARIA’s level of concern (i.e. <100% chronic population adjusted doses (cPAD).

Cancer Exposure Results and Characterization

Flumioxazin was classified as “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of carcinogenicity in a 2-year rat study, an 18-month mouse study, and a battery of mutagenic studies; therefore, no cancer assessment was performed.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which ARIA has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to point of departure (POD, NOAEL, LOAEL, e.g.) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, ARIA is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  ARIA is generally concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million (i.e., the risk exceeds 1 x 10-6).  References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  “Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 6/21/2000, web link:      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf"  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf  ; or see SOP 99.6 (8/20/99).

The most recent dietary risk assessment for flumioxazin was conducted by B. Hanson (PP#7F7243, DP#: 342414, 3/5/08).

II.	Residue Information

Tolerances:  Tolerances are currently established for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin in/on various plant commodities, at levels ranging from 0.02 to 8.0 ppm (as listed in e-CFR 40 §180.568[a], Updated June 1, 2009).

Residue of Concern:  The residue of concern for both the tolerance expression and risk assessment in plants is flumioxazin per se.  The residue of concern for both the tolerance expression and risk assessment in fish is flumioxazin and its metabolites APF (3-oxo-4-prop-2ynyl-6-amino-7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1,4-benzoxazin) and 482-HA (N-(7-fluoro-3,4-dihdyro-3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl)cycl ohex-1-ene-1-carboxamide-2-carboxylic acid), each expressed as parent equivalents.

Residue Data Used for Dietary Assessments:  Previously, residue data from field trials conducted to support the existing registrations show that, generally, residues of flumioxazin are low, and that residues do not concentrate into processed products; therefore, use of default processing factors in the analysis is considered conservative and will overestimate dietary exposure.

Current and ARIA recommended tolerance-level residues were used for all raw agricultural commodities (RACs).  DEEM( 7.81 processing factors were used for all processed commodities, with the exception of tomato which used the empirical processing factor of one.  A tomato processing factor of 1 is based on an exaggerated (~5x) crop field trial study in which no residues were recovered; therefore, a processing study is not required (47005106.der.com, D. Rate, 6/19/07).  100%CT was assumed for all commodities in this assessment.

As part of the current petition, ARIA recommends establishing tolerances:

Fish, fresh water	1.5 ppm

Cucurbit vegetables group 9	0.03 ppm

Leaf petioles subgroup 4B	0.02 ppm

Hops, dried cones	0.05 ppm

Because the aquatic applications of flumioxazin are prohibited to flowing water, intertidal or estuarine areas and to water used for crawfish farming, residue data and tolerances are not required for shellfish or saltwater fishes.

III.	Drinking Water Data

The drinking water residues used in the dietary risk assessment were provided by EFED in the following memorandum: “Drinking Water Assessment for: (1) IR-4 Registration for Flumioxazin to be used on Asparagus, Dry Bean, Bushberry Subgroup 13B, Fruiting Vegetable Subgroup 8, Melon Subgroup 9A, Okra and Tree Nut Subgroup 14; and (2) Section 3 Registration for Use on Field Corn and Alfalfa (DP#: D336195, 342249, 331732; L. Liu; 9/25/07) and incorporated directly into this dietary assessment.  Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

The hydrolysis study for flumioxazin indicates that flumioxazin forms the metabolite 482-HA, which can further hydrolyze to the metabolites APF and THPA.  The rates of the two hydrolytic reactions are very pH dependent, but flumioxazin (parent compound) is not very stable at any likely environmental pH.  Data also indicates that THPA and APF are likely to be very mobile.  Although THPA can comprise a major portion of the total residue in water, it does not possess the phenyl ring and is thus considered significantly less toxic than parent, APF, and 482-HA.  Thus, THPA has not been included in the residue of concern for drinking water.  Therefore, parent flumioxazin and the metabolites 482-HA and APF are the residues of concern in drinking water.  The EDWCs for flumioxazin residues (used in both the acute and chronic dietary analyses) was 0.048 ppm, the concentration in groundwater as estimated by the Screening Concentration In GroundWater (SCI-GROW) model.  SCI-GROW is an empirical model for predicting pesticide levels in groundwater; the value from SCI-GROW is considered an upper bound concentration estimate, and thus conservative.  In order to be conservative with the estimates, the groundwater EDWC (0.048 ppm), greater than the surface water EDWC (0.034 ppm), was used in both dietary analyses

Table 1 summarizes the drinking water concentrations provided by EFED.  The model and its description are available at the EPA internet site:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/"  http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ .

Table 1.  EDWCs for Flumioxazin and its Degradates in Surface Water and Groundwater at pH 7.1

Compound	Average 56-Day Conc. in  Surface Water	Peak Conc. in Surface Water	Conc. in Groundwater

Flumioxazin	negligible	1.03 ppb	negligible

482-HA	4.84 ppb	6.87 ppb	45.27 ppb

APF	12.85 ppb	26.46 ppb	2.66 ppb

THPA	19.50 ppb	27.67 ppb	182.28 ppb

1 Total EDWC = Flumioxazin + 482-HA + APF

.	DEEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

Flumioxazin acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate.  The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., only those who reported eating relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis.  However, for tiers 1 and 2, any significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are specifically identified and noted in the risk assessment.

V.	Toxicological Information

The findings of the flumioxazin risk assessment team, relative to dietary exposure, are summarized in Table 2 (below).  In accordance with the EPA Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (July, 1999), flumioxazin was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Table 2.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Use in Human Health Dietary

Risk Assessment for Flumioxazin.

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/ FQPA Safety Factors	RfD, PAD, Level of Concern 	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary (General Population, including Infants and Children)	No endpoint attributable to a single dose (exposure) was identified in the available studies, including the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.

Acute Dietary

(Females 13-49 years of age)	NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/day

	UFA= 10x

UFH= 10x

FQPA SF = 1X

Total UF = 100X

	Acute RfD =

NOAEL ( UF =

0.03 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 0.03 mg/kg/day	Oral developmental and supplemental prenatal studies in the rat.

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on cardiovascular effects (especially ventricular septal defects in fetuses).

Chronic Dietary (All Populations)	NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day

	UFA= 10x

UFH= 10x

FQPA SF = 1X

Total UF = 100X

	Chronic RfD ( FQPA SF = 0.02 mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.02  mg/kg/day	2-year chronic/carcinogenicity study in the rat.

LOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day based on increased chronic nephropathy in males, and decreased hematological parameters in females (Hgb, MCV, MCH, and MCHC).

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)   	Classification: “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of carcinogenicity in a 2-year rat study, an 18-month mouse study, and a battery of mutagenic studies.

Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and  used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures.  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.  LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.  UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (intraspecies).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (interspecies).  UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.  UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term risk assessment.  UFDB = to account for the absence of key data (i.e., lack of a critical study).  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).  RfD = reference dose.  LOC = level of concern.  N/A = not applicable.

VI.	Results/Discussion

As stated above, for acute or chronic dietary assessments, ARIA is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID( analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the US population and various population subgroups.  The results reported in Table 3 (below) are for the general US population (total), all infants <1, children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youths 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ for chronic exposure and females 13-49 for acute exposure.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

Flumioxazin acute dietary (food + water) exposure estimates using the DEEM-FCID™ software are below ARIA’s level of concern for females 13-49.  The acute dietary exposure for the females, 13-49 years old, utilized 9% of the aPAD.

Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

Flumioxazin chronic dietary (food + water) exposure estimates using the DEEM-FCID™ software are below ARIA’s level of concern for the U.S. population and each of the population subgroups.  Chronic dietary exposure utilized 7% of the cPAD for the U.S. population.  The chronic dietary exposure for the highest reported exposed population subgroup, all infants (<1 year old), was 19% of the cPAD.

The results of the acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses are reported in the Summary Table (Table 3, below).

TABLE 3.  Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Flumioxazin.

Population Subgroup1

DEEM Acute Dietary Analysis,

95th Percentile

DEEM Chronic Dietary Analysis

aPAD (mg/kg)

Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% aPAD

cPAD (mg/kg/day)

Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% cPAD

General U.S. Population

NA 2	0.02	0.001307	7

All Infants (< 1 year old)

0.02	0.003761	19

Children 1-2 years old

0.02	0.002289	11

Children 3-5 years old

0.02	0.002120	11

Children 6-12 years old

0.02	0.001433	7

Youth 13-19 years old

0.02	0.000980	5

Adults 20-49 years old

0.02	0.001165	6

Adults 50+ years old

0.02	0.001225	6

Females 13-49 years old	0.03	0.002734	9	0.02	0.001165	6

1 Values for the population with the highest risk for each type of risk assessment are bolded.

2 NA = Not Applicable; no acute dietary endpoint was identified for these population subgroups

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

The assumptions made in this assessment are conservative, and are very likely to result in exposure and risk values that considerably overestimate actual dietary exposure to flumioxazin.  Although not needed at this time, the analyses could be further refined through the use of average residues based on field trial data, percent crop treated data and/or preparation/cooking factors.  Since risk estimates are below ARIA’s level of concern, a more highly refined analysis is not needed at this time.

VIII.	Conclusions

Based on conservative assumptions, dietary risk estimates for flumioxazin do not exceed ARIA’s level of concern for the general U.S. population, nor did any of the population subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children.  For the acute analysis, there were no differences between user vs. per capita exposure and risk.

IX.	List of Attachments

Attachment 1:  Food plus Water Residue Input File

Attachment 2:  Acute Results File

Attachment 3:  Chronic Results File

Attachment 4:  Chemical Structure of Flumioxazin and metabolites (482-HA and APF)                used in the EDWCs.

Attachment 1:  Food plus Water Residue Input File

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                 Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for FLUMIOXAZIN                        1994-98 data

Residue file: G:\129034c.r98                               Adjust. #2 NOT used

Analysis Date 06-04-2009             Residue file dated: 06-04-2009/10:40:15/8

Reference dose (RfD) = 0.02 mg/kg bw/day

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

Food Crop                                       Residue       Adj.Factors      Comment

EPA Code  Grp  Food Name                          (ppm)

                                                             #1         #2

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

14000030 14   Almond                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

14000031 14   Almond-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

14000040 14   Almond, oil                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

14000041 14   Almond, oil-babyfood               0.020000   1.000      1.000

11000070 11   Apple, fruit with peel             0.020000   1.000      1.000

11000080 11   Apple, peeled fruit                0.020000   1.000      1.000

11000081 11   Apple, peeled fruit-babyfood       0.020000   1.000      1.000

11000090 11   Apple, dried                       0.020000   8.000      1.000

11000091 11   Apple, dried-babyfood              0.020000   8.000      1.000

11000100 11   Apple, juice                       0.020000   1.300      1.000

11000101 11   Apple, juice-babyfood              0.020000   1.300      1.000

11000110 11   Apple, sauce                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

11000111 11   Apple, sauce-babyfood              0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000120 12   Apricot                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000121 12   Apricot-babyfood                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000130 12   Apricot, dried                     0.020000   6.000      1.000

12000140 12   Apricot, juice                     0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000141 12   Apricot, juice-babyfood            0.020000   1.000      1.000

01030150 1CD  Arrowroot, flour                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

01030151 1CD  Arrowroot, flour-babyfood          0.020000   1.000      1.000

01030170 1CD  Artichoke, Jerusalem               0.020000   1.000      1.000

95000190 O    Asparagus                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

09020210 9B   Balsam pear                        0.030000   1.000      1.000

06030300 6C   Bean, black, seed                  0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030320 6C   Bean, broad, seed                  0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030340 6C   Bean, cowpea, seed                 0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030350 6C   Bean,  great northern, seed        0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030360 6C   Bean, kidney, seed                 0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030380 6C   Bean, lima, seed                   0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030390 6C   Bean, mung, seed                   0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030400 6C   Bean, navy, seed                   0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030410 6C   Bean, pink, seed                   0.050000   1.000      1.000

06030420 6C   Bean, pinto, seed                  0.050000   1.000      1.000

13020570 13B  Blueberry                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

13020571 13B  Blueberry-babyfood                 0.020000   1.000      1.000

14000590 14   Brazil nut                         0.020000   1.000      1.000

14000680 14   Butternut                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

09010750 9A   Cantaloupe                         0.030000   1.000      1.000

04020760 4B   Cardoon                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

09010800 9A   Casaba                             0.030000   1.000      1.000

14000810 14   Cashew                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

01030820 1CD  Cassava                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

01030821 1CD  Cassava-babyfood                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

04020850 4B   Celery                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

04020851 4B   Celery-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

04020860 4B   Celery, juice                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

04020870 4B   Celtuce                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

09020880 9B   Chayote, fruit                     0.030000   1.000      1.000

12000900 12   Cherry                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000901 12   Cherry-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

12000910 12   Cherry, juice                      0.020000   1.500      1.000

12000911 12   Cherry, juice-babyfood             0.020000   1.500      1.000

14000920 14   Chestnut                           0.020000   1.000      1.000

09021020 9B   Chinese waxgourd                   0.030000   1.000      1.000

15001200 15   Corn, field, flour                 0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001201 15   Corn, field, flour-babyfood        0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001210 15   Corn, field, meal                  0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001211 15   Corn, field, meal-babyfood         0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001220 15   Corn, field, bran                  0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001230 15   Corn, field, starch                0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001231 15   Corn, field, starch-babyfood       0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001240 15   Corn, field, syrup                 0.020000   1.500      1.000

15001241 15   Corn, field, syrup-babyfood        0.020000   1.500      1.000

15001250 15   Corn, field, oil                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

15001251 15   Corn, field, oil-babyfood          0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001280 O    Cottonseed, oil                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001281 O    Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.020000   1.000      1.000

11001290 11   Crabapple                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001300 O    Cranberry                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001301 O    Cranberry-babyfood                 0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001310 O    Cranberry, dried                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001320 O    Cranberry, juice                   0.020000   1.100      1.000

95001321 O    Cranberry, juice-babyfood          0.020000   1.100      1.000

09021350 9B   Cucumber                           0.030000   1.000      1.000

13021360 13B  Currant                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

13021370 13B  Currant, dried                     0.020000   1.000      1.000

01031390 1CD  Dasheen, corm                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

08001480 8    Eggplant                           0.020000   1.000      1.000

13021490 13B  Elderberry                         0.020000   1.000      1.000

04021520 4B   Fennel, Florence                   0.020000   1.000      1.000

14001550 14   Filbert                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

14001560 14   Filbert, oil                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

80001570 F    Fish-freshwater finfish            1.500000   1.000      1.000

80001580 F    Fish-freshwater finfish, farm ra   1.500000   1.000      1.000

03001640 3    Garlic                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

03001650 3    Garlic, dried                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

03001651 3    Garlic, dried-babyfood             0.020000   1.000      1.000

01031660 1CD  Ginger                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

01031661 1CD  Ginger-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

01031670 1CD  Ginger, dried                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

13021740 13B  Gooseberry                         0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001750 O    Grape                              0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001760 O    Grape, juice                       0.020000   1.200      1.000

95001761 O    Grape, juice-babyfood              0.020000   1.200      1.000

95001770 O    Grape, leaves                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

95001780 O    Grape, raisin                      0.020000   4.300      1.000

95001790 O    Grape, wine and sherry             0.020000   1.000      1.000

14001850 14   Hickory nut                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

09011870 9A   Honeydew melon                     0.030000   1.000      1.000

95001880 O    Hop                                0.050000   1.000      1.000

13021910 13B  Huckleberry                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

11002100 11   Loquat                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

14002130 14   Macadamia nut                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002300 12   Nectarine                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002340 8    Okra                               0.020000   1.000      1.000

03002370 3    Onion, dry bulb                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

03002371 3    Onion, dry bulb-babyfood           0.020000   1.000      1.000

03002380 3    Onion, dry bulb, dried             0.020000   9.000      1.000

03002381 3    Onion, dry bulb, dried-babyfood    0.020000   9.000      1.000

03002390 3    Onion, green                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002600 12   Peach                              0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002601 12   Peach-babyfood                     0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002610 12   Peach, dried                       0.020000   7.000      1.000

12002611 12   Peach, dried-babyfood              0.020000   7.000      1.000

12002620 12   Peach, juice                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002621 12   Peach, juice-babyfood              0.020000   1.000      1.000

95002630 O    Peanut                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

95002640 O    Peanut, butter                     0.020000   1.890      1.000

95002650 O    Peanut, oil                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

11002660 11   Pear                               0.020000   1.000      1.000

11002661 11   Pear-babyfood                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

11002670 11   Pear, dried                        0.020000   6.250      1.000

11002680 11   Pear, juice                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

11002681 11   Pear, juice-babyfood               0.020000   1.000      1.000

14002690 14   Pecan                              0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002700 8    Pepper, bell                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002701 8    Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002710 8    Pepper, bell, dried                0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002711 8    Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002720 8    Pepper, nonbell                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002721 8    Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.020000   1.000      1.000

08002730 8    Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.020000   1.000      1.000

95002750 O    Peppermint                         0.040000   1.000      1.000

14002820 14   Pistachio                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002850 12   Plum                               0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002851 12   Plum-babyfood                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002860 12   Plum, prune, fresh                 0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002861 12   Plum, prune, fresh-babyfood        0.020000   1.000      1.000

12002870 12   Plum, prune, dried                 0.020000   5.000      1.000

12002871 12   Plum, prune, dried-babyfood        0.020000   5.000      1.000

12002880 12   Plum, prune, juice                 0.020000   1.400      1.000

12002881 12   Plum, prune, juice-babyfood        0.020000   1.400      1.000

01032960 1C   Potato, chips                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032970 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.020000   6.500      1.000

01032971 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.020000   6.500      1.000

01032980 1C   Potato, flour                      0.020000   6.500      1.000

01032981 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.020000   6.500      1.000

01032990 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.020000   1.000      1.000

01032991 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.020000   1.000      1.000

09023080 9B   Pumpkin                            0.030000   1.000      1.000

09023090 9B   Pumpkin, seed                      0.030000   1.000      1.000

11003100 11   Quince                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

04023220 4B   Rhubarb                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

03003380 3    Shallot                            0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003470 6    Soybean, seed                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003480 6    Soybean, flour                     0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003481 6    Soybean, flour-babyfood            0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003490 6    Soybean, soy milk                  0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003491 6    Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in   0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003500 6    Soybean, oil                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

06003501 6    Soybean, oil-babyfood              0.020000   1.000      1.000

95003520 O    Spearmint                          0.040000   1.000      1.000

09023560 9B   Squash, summer                     0.030000   1.000      1.000

09023561 9B   Squash, summer-babyfood            0.030000   1.000      1.000

09023570 9B   Squash, winter                     0.030000   1.000      1.000

09023571 9B   Squash, winter-babyfood            0.030000   1.000      1.000

95003590 O    Strawberry                         0.070000   1.000      1.000

95003591 O    Strawberry-babyfood                0.070000   1.000      1.000

95003600 O    Strawberry, juice                  0.070000   1.000      1.000

95003601 O    Strawberry, juice-babyfood         0.070000   1.000      1.000

95003620 O    Sugarcane, sugar                   0.200000   1.000      1.000

95003621 O    Sugarcane, sugar-babyfood          0.200000   1.000      1.000

95003630 O    Sugarcane, molasses                0.200000   1.000      1.000

95003631 O    Sugarcane, molasses-babyfood       0.200000   1.000      1.000

01033660 1CD  Sweet potato                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033661 1CD  Sweet potato-babyfood              0.020000   1.000      1.000

04023670 4B   Swiss chard                        0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033710 1CD  Tanier, corm                       0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003740 8    Tomatillo                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003750 8    Tomato                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003751 8    Tomato-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003760 8    Tomato, paste                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003761 8    Tomato, paste-babyfood             0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003770 8    Tomato, puree                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003771 8    Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003780 8    Tomato, dried                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003781 8    Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.020000   1.000      1.000

08003790 8    Tomato, juice                      0.020000   1.000      1.000

01033870 1CD  Turmeric                           0.020000   1.000      1.000

14003910 14   Walnut                             0.020000   1.000      1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.048000   1.000      1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.048000   1.000      1.000

09013990 9A   Watermelon                         0.030000   1.000      1.000

09014000 9A   Watermelon, juice                  0.030000   1.000      1.000

01034060 1CD  Yam, true                          0.020000   1.000      1.000

01034070 1CD  Yam bean                           0.020000   1.000      1.000

Attachment 2:  Acute Results File

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                  Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for FLUMIOXAZIN                         (1994-98 data)

Residue file: 129034c.r98                         Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date: 06-04-2009/11:46:48    Residue file dated: 06-04-2009/10:40:15/8

Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

Run Comment: ""

======================================================================== =======

Summary calculations (per capita):

                    95th Percentile      99th Percentile      99.9th Percentile

                   Exposure   % aRfD    Exposure   % aRfD    Exposure   % aRfD

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

Females 13-49 yrs:

                    0.002734     9.11    0.004778    15.93    0.009800    32.67

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                  Ver. 2.02

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for FLUMIOXAZIN                         (1994-98 data)

Residue file: 129034c.r98                         Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date: 06-04-2009/11:46:48    Residue file dated: 06-04-2009/10:40:15/8

Acute Reference Dose (aRfD) =   0.030000 mg/kg body-wt/day

Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used.

Run Comment: ""

======================================================================== =======

Females 13-49 yrs                  Daily Exposure Analysis  /a

-----------------                  (mg/kg body-weight/day)

                                    per Capita    per User

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

            Mean                      0.001165     0.001165

            Standard Deviation        0.000950     0.000950

            Standard Error of mean    0.000012     0.000012

            Percent of aRfD               3.88         3.88

       Percent of Person-Days that are User-Days =  99.99%

Attachment 3:  Chronic Results File

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                 Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for FLUMIOXAZIN                      (1994-98 data)

Residue file name: G:\129034c.r98                Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Analysis Date 06-04-2009/11:44:53     Residue file dated: 06-04-2009/10:40:15/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .02 mg/kg bw/day

======================================================================== =======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent of

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.001307                 6.5%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.001306                 6.5%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.001393                 7.0%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.001271                 6.4%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.001255                 6.3%

Northeast region                            0.001194                 6.0%

Midwest region                              0.001322                 6.6%

Southern region                             0.001251                 6.3%

Western region                              0.001481                 7.4%

Hispanics                                   0.001452                 7.3%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.001271                 6.4%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.001280                 6.4%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.001631                 8.2%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.003761                18.8%

Nursing infants                             0.001448                 7.2%

Non-nursing infants                         0.004639                23.2%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.002130                10.6%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.001361                 6.8%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.000944                 4.7%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.001229                 6.1%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.001216                 6.1%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.001211                 6.1%

¤

-

¤

¨

ª

¾

À

Ä

9

C

V

W

\

]

w

‹

Œ

Ž

¡

¢

옍

7

8

9

B

C

J

K

V

\

]

^

g

h

h

v

x

ƒ

‹

Ž

¡

¢

Ò

Ó

ç

ø

ÿ

@

@

@

gd

gd

瑹㽉"

摧㽉"

摧㽉"

摧㽉"

摧㽉"

@

将

yt

@

\

@

\

@

\

@

\

@

\

@

\

&

@

@

&

@

&

@

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.001684                 8.4%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.001010                 5.0%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.001135                 5.7%

Seniors 55+                                 0.001229                 6.1%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.002289                11.4%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.002120                10.6%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.001433                 7.2%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.000980                 4.9%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.001165                 5.8%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.001225                 6.1%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.001165                 5.8%

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

Attachment 4:  Chemical Structure of Flumioxazin and metabolites (482-HA and APF) used in the EDWCs.

Chemical Name	Structure

Flumioxazin

2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2- propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]- 4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole- 1,3(2H)-dione

482-HA

N-[7-fluoro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)- 2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-3,4,5,6- tetrahydrophthalamic acid

APF

6-amino-7-fluoro-4-(2-propenyl)- 2H-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one

Flumioxazin	Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment	DP Number: 367978

PC Code: 129034

________________________________________________________________________ ______________

 PAGE

	Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  15


[Federal Register: June 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33613]
[DOCID:fr14jn10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Interviews, Teleconferences, Regional Workshops and
Multi-Stakeholder Technical Conference on the Integrated Licensing
Process

June 7, 2010.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILP Effectiveness Evaluation 2010..  Docket No. AD10-7-000.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC.....  Project No. 2355-011.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC.....  Project No. 405-087.
Merced Irrigation District.........  Project No. 2179-042.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company.....  Project No. 2310-173.
Nevada Irrigation District.........  Project No. 2266-096.
Sabine River Authority of Texas and  Project No. 2305-020.
 State of Louisiana.
Town of Massena Electric Department  Project No. 12607-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12829-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12861-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12912-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12915-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12921-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12930-001.
Free Flow Power Corporation........  Project No. 12938-001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
staff issued notice of a second effectiveness evaluation of the
Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The purpose of this evaluation is
to seek further feedback on experiences in the ILP and to explore ideas
to better implement the ILP. The May 18, 2010 Notice describes this
effort, which includes conducting interviews and teleconferences with a
cross-section of stakeholders, four regional workshops, and a multi-
stakeholder effectiveness technical conference in Washington, DC. To
facilitate this review, FERC has contracted with Kearns & West to
conduct the 2010 ILP Effectiveness Evaluation.
    As indicated in the May 18, 2010 Notice members of Kearns & West
are conducting phone interviews with a number of representatives of
agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, licensees, Commission
staff, and others involved in 19 hydropower licensing proceedings in
which the applicants have completed the pre-filing efforts and filed
license applications using the ILP. To gather additional insight into
the ILP formal dispute resolution process, staff has decided to expand
the interview efforts to include all the proceedings where the ILP
formal dispute resolution process has been used. The additional
proceedings are identified in the caption above. Because of ex parte
concerns, discussions will be limited to process rather than the merits
of any proceeding before the Commission.
    See the May 18, 2010 Notice for additional details regarding the
ILP effectiveness study.
    For additional information, please contact David Turner at 202-502-
6091 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14151 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77992-77993]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1476-001.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Tampa Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 11/10/11.
    Accession Number: 20111110-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-001; ER10-2343-001; ER10-2320-001; ER10-
2322-002; ER10-2326-001; ER10-2327-002; ER10-2330-001.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis and Order
Nos. 697 and 697-A Compliance Filing of the JPMorgan Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-559-000.
    Applicants: Golden Valley Wind Park, LLC.

    Description: Golden Valley Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-560-000.
    Applicants: Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Milner Dam Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-561-000.
    Applicants: Oregon Trail Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Oregon Trail Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-562-000.
    Applicants: Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Pilgrim Stage Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-563-000.
    Applicants: Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Thousand Springs Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-564-000.
    Applicants: Tuana Gulch Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Tuana Gulch Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-565-000.
    Applicants: Camp Reed Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Camp Reed Category 2 Compliance Filing to be effective
12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-566-000.
    Applicants: Payne's Ferry Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Payne's Ferry Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-567-000.
    Applicants: Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Salmon Falls Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-568-000.
    Applicants: Yahoo Creek Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Yahoo Creek Category 2 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC12-5-000.
    Applicants: Bangkok Cogeneration Co., Ltd.
    Description: Self-Certification of FC of Bangkok Cogeneration Co.,
Ltd.
    Filed Date: 12/7/11.
    Accession Number: 20111207-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/11.

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

    Dated: December 7, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32150 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47201-47202]
[DOCID:fr16au06-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of license to upgrade the installed
capacity.
    b. Project No: 2077-055.
    c. Date Filed: June 27, 2006.
    d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Fifteen Mile Falls.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Connecticut River near
the Town of Littleton, Grafton County, New Hampshire, and Caledonia
County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Ragonese, TransCanada Northeast,
Inc., 4 Park Street, Suite 402, Concord, NH 03301-3260. Tel: (603) 225-
3260.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Vedula Sarma at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: September 8, 2006.
    k. Description of Filing: TransCanada Northeast, Inc. proposes to
replace turbine runners at the Comerford Development of the project.
The project consists of three developments: the Moore, Comerford and
McIndoes developments with a current authorized installed capacity of
291,360 kilowatts (kW) and total hydraulic capacity of 37,400 cfs. The
licensee proposes to replace existing four turbine runners of the
Comerford Development in two phases. Phase 1 involves immediate
replacement of turbine runner of Unit 1, and in phase 2 the turbine
runners of the remaining three units would be replaced over a period of
four years. The proposed changes would increase the project's total
installed capacity by 28,600 kW and the hydraulic capacity would be
reduced from 37,400 cfs to 37,235 cfs.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13365 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the final Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

Revised Capacity Factors Analysis for New Units

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

June 2011

Capacity Factors Analysis for New Units

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides updated information that
supports the EPA’s determination of default capacity factors for new
units to be adopted by the Transport Rule.  Section V.D.4 in the
preamble of the Transport Rule proposal described proposed assurance
provisions that require the use of default capacity factors for new
units without allowance allocations.  In the TSD entitled “Capacity
Factors Analysis for New Units (June 2010)” EPA documented how the
proposed default capacity factors were determined for coal-fired boilers
and combustion turbines.  This TSD describes how EPA determined the
final default capacity factors for those same unit types of units and
other types of units using updated information now available.  The TSD
is organized as follows:

1.  Introduction

2.  Determination of default capacity factors

1. Introduction

Section VII.E of the preamble of the final Transport Rule describes
EPA’s assurance provisions.  As described in the preamble, if the
assurance provisions in a state are triggered, then EPA applies
additional criteria to determine which source owners and operators in
the state are subject to an allowance surrender requirement.  In
particular, the owners and operators of a group of sources having a
common designated representative and having total emissions exceeding
the common designated representative’s share of the state budget must
surrender allowances.  The common designated representative’s share of
the state budget includes the total allocations of the units in the
group.  In the event that such a unit is a new unit receiving no
allocation for the control period involved, EPA uses a surrogate
allocation value that is calculated using a representative capacity
factor.

A new unit’s surrogate allocation number is calculated by multiplying
the unit’s allowable emissions rate (in lbs/MWe) by the unit’s
maximum hourly load (in MWe/hr), the default capacity factor for the
unit type, and the number of days in the control period involved and
divided by 2,000/lb/ton.

The default capacity factors for new units – which are presented in
preamble section VII.E – are shown below in Table 1.  This TSD
describes how EPA determined these default capacity factors.

Table 1.  Default Capacity Factors for New Units

for Transport Rule Trading Programs

(Percentage)

Unit Types	Annual SO2 & NOX Programs	Ozone Season NOX Program

Coal-fired Steam Boiler	85	92

IGCC (coal gasification) 	74	73

Oil-fired Steam Boiler	30	39

Natural Gas-fired Steam Boiler	44	47

Simple cycle combustion turbine	24	32

Combined cycle combustion turbine	66	71

2. Determination of Default Capacity Factors

EPA determined the default capacity factors for new units in Table 1
based on analysis of capacity factors using data reported to EPA by
source owners and operators as part of EPA’s emissions trading
programs.  These programs require industry sources to report hourly
emissions data each quarter.

Using the reported data, EPA calculated both annual and ozone season
capacity factor for each unit between the years 2008 and 2010.  For this
analysis, we removed any partial years from the data sets.  In general,
EPA focused this analysis on units that commenced commercial operation
after the year 2000.  However, as discussed in section VII.D.2 of the
preamble, some units commencing operation in 2000 or earlier (such as
older units that are not initially but later become subject to the
Transport Rule trading program) can be treated as new units and may need
surrogate allocation values.  For the unit types of IGCC and oil-fired
boiler, no recently constructed units exist.  Therefore, EPA used data
from 2008 through 2010 from all existing units of those unit types to
derive appropriate capacity factors to be applied to any such new units.

To determine annual capacity factors, EPA calculated the capacity factor
for units reporting in electrical load units (MW) by dividing the gross
electrical output (MWhr) by the maximum hourly load times 8,760 hours
(the number of hours in a year).  For units reporting in steam units
(KLBsteam), i.e., coal boilers only, we divided the total mass of steam
produced by the maximum steam rate times 8,760 hours.  The maximum
hourly load or maximum steam rate is reported to EPA.  From these annual
capacity factors EPA then determined the 95th percentile values of
capacity factors for each unit type.

To determine ozone-season capacity factors, EPA performed the same
calculations, except based on the potential load during the 3,672 hours
of the ozone-season control period, rather than 8,760 hours.

As described in the original TSD analysis, EPA chose the 95th percentile
annual capacity factors for use as default capacity factors for new
units in the Transport Rule annual and ozone season trading programs.
EPA believes that this approach will take into account a reasonable
range of operating conditions for new units.

Figure 1

* Unit types for which existing units (units that commenced operation
before 2000) were used.Figure 2

* Unit types for which existing units (units that commenced operation
before 2000) were used.

 EPA also calculated capacity factors for 2000-2007 and 2000-2010 and
selected the use of the capacity factors from 2008 through 2010 because
this time period is thought to be more representative of present
conditions.  Note that, in the June 2010 analysis performed for the
proposed rule, the capacity factors were calculated from all data from
2000 through 2009 for coal and from 2004 through 2009 for combustion
turbines.  In this final analysis EPA has chosen to rely on the more
representative, recent data.

 Note that the analysis done for the proposed rule utilized data from
units commencing operation beginning in year 1999 or later.

May 20, 2011 -- DRAFT – Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8240-8241]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0143]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a letter dated
December 11, 2013, Mr. Ray Kolasa, a private owner of a Penn Central
Transfer Caboose, Car Number 18216, petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part
215, Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2013-0143.
    Mr. Kolasa seeks relief for the caboose from 49 CFR 215.303,
Stenciling of restricted cars, which requires that restricted railroad
freight cars shall be stenciled or marked in clearly legible letters
with the letter ``R.'' The caboose was built in 1948 and is more than
50 years old from its original date of construction, and therefore is
restricted per 49 CFR 215.203(a), Restricted cars. Mr. Kolasa states
that stenciling of this car would distract from the historical image.
Mr. Kolasa also requests Special Approval for continued operation of
the same car in accordance with 49 CFR 215.203(c).
    Mr. Kolasa further states that this car was converted to carry
passengers and will be used for tourist attractions and historical
purposes. This car will not be interchanged in regular freight
operations. Additionally, Mr. Kolasa states that this car will be
serviced, inspected, and maintained in compliance with all applicable
regulations with the exception of the conditions that require special
approvals.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue. SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 28, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice

for the privacy notice of regulations.gov or interested parties may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-02867 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50181-50185]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23480]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81932; File No. SR-PEARL-2017-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

October 24, 2017.
    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 October 11, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a fee for the sale of certain
historical market data.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt a fee for
the sale of certain historical market data.
    The historical market data that the Exchange proposes to sell
provides information about the past activity of all option products
traded on the Exchange for each trading session conducted during a
particular calendar month. The data is intended to enhance the user's
ability to analyze option trade and volume data, evaluate historical
trends in the trading activity of a particular option product, and
enable the testing of trading models and analytical strategies.
Specifically, the historical market data that the Exchange proposes to
sell includes all data that is captured and disseminated on the
following proprietary MIAX PEARL data feeds, on a T+1 basis: MIAX PEARL
Top of Market (``ToM''); and MIAX PEARL Liquidity Feed (``PLF'')
(``Historical Market Data''). All such proprietary MIAX PEARL data
feeds that, on a T+1 basis, comprise the Historical Market Data are
described on the Exchange's Fee Schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule, Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ToM provides real-time, ultra-low latency updates of the MIAX PEARL
Best Bid or Offer, or PBBO,\4\ the last sale with trade price, size and
condition, last sale cancellations, listed series updates, system
state, and underlying trading state.\5\ PLF provides real-time, ultra-
low latency updates of new simple orders added to the MIAX PEARL order
book, updates to simple orders resting on the MIAX PEARL order book,
listed series updates, System \6\ state, and underlying trading
state.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``PBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the PEARL
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100. See also Exchange Rule 506(d).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79913 (February 1,
2017), 82 FR 9617 (February 7, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-01)
(Establishing MIAX PEARL ToM and PLF Data Products).
    \6\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX PEARL will only assess the fee for Historical Market Data on a
user (whether Member or Non-Member) that specifically requests such
Historical Market Data. Historical Market Data will be uploaded onto an
Exchange-provided device. The amount of the fee is $500, and it will be
assessed on a per device basis. Each device shall have a maximum
storage capacity of 8 Terabytes and will be configured to include data
for both MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL. Users may request up to six
months of Historical Market Data per device, subject to the device's
storage capacity. Historical Market Data is available from August 1,
2017 to the present (always on a T+1 basis), however only the most
recent six months of Historical Market Data shall be available for
purchase from the request date. Historical Market Data usage is
restricted to internal use only, and thus may not be distributed to any
third-party.
    The Exchange notes that this filing is substantially similar to a
companion MIAX Options filing \8\ establishing a fee for historical
market data on its exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See SR-MIAX-2017-42 (filed on October 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The proposal provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange

members and other persons using its facilities because all persons and
entities will have equal access to Historical Market Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are a reasonable allocation
of its costs and expenses among its Members and other persons using its
facilities since it is recovering the costs associated with
distributing such data. Access to the Exchange is provided on fair and
non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee level results
in a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees amongst users for
similar services. Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to
purchase Historical Market Data is entirely optional to all users.
Potential purchasers are not required to purchase the Historical Market
Data, and the Exchange is not required to make the Historical Market
Data available. Purchasers may request the data at any time or may
decline to purchase such data. The allocation of fees among users is
fair and reasonable because, if the market deems the proposed fees to
be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue their use
of this data.
    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:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data when broker-dealers may choose to
receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own
internal analysis of the need for such data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),
which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other things, Section 916 of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act
by inserting the phrase ``on any person, whether or not the person is a
member of the self-regulatory organization'' after ``due, fee or other
charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization.'' As a result, all
SRO rule proposals establishing or changing dues, fees or other charges
are immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues,
fees or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members,
or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3)
of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day
period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)],
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the
rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    The Exchange believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the
Act reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. The
Exchange believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned, not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit, investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    Selling proprietary market data, such as Historical Market Data, is
a means by which exchanges compete to attract business. To the extent
that exchanges are successful in such competition, they earn trading
revenues and also enhance the value of their data products by
increasing the amount of data they provide. The need to compete for
business places substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees
for both executions and data reasonable.\12\ The Exchange therefore
believes that the fees for Historical Market Data are properly assessed
on Members and Non-Member users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass'n (SIFMA), Initial Decision
Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding
the existence of vigorous competition with respect to non-core
market data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as

in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.

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

    MIAX PEARL does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Indeed, the Exchange believes
that offering certain Historical Market Data will enhance competition
by encouraging sales, which will make analytical data more readily
available to investors. Notwithstanding its determination that the
Commission may rely upon competition to establish fair and equitably
allocated fees for market data, the NetCoalition Court found that the
Commission had not, in that case, compiled a record that adequately
supported its conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the
case was competitive. The Exchange believes that a record may readily
be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in
question.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and users may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided.
Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and
market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution
service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic
example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on
which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the
platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees,
data quality and price, and distribution of its data products. Without
trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data
products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide
information that end users expect will assist them or their customers
in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the
Exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
This cost structure is common in content distribution industries such
as software, where developing new software typically requires a large
initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade
software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of
providing that software to an additional user is typically small, or
even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded over the internet
after being purchased).\14\ In the case of any exchange, it is costly
to build and maintain a trading platform, but the incremental cost of
trading each additional share on an existing platform, or distributing
an additional instance of data, is very low. Market information and
executions are each produced jointly (in the sense that the activities
of trading and placing orders are the source of the information that is
distributed) and are each subject to significant scale economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products. The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evidence in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order
flow, including SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions. It is
common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their
order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than
providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs,
TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently
permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do
or have announced plans to do so, including the Nasdaq exchanges, NYSE
exchanges, and CBOE/Bats exchanges.
    In this competitive environment, an ``excessive'' price for one
product will have to be reflected in lower prices for other products
sold by the Exchange, or otherwise the Exchange may experience a loss
in sales that may adversely affect its profitability. In this case, the
proposed rule change enhances competition by providing Historical
Market Data at a fixed price. As such, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes will enhance, not impair, competition in the financial
markets.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including fifteen existing options markets. Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO is currently permitted to
produce proprietary data products, and many in addition to MIAX PEARL
currently do, including NASDAQ, CBOE, Nasdaq ISE, NYSE American, and
NYSE Arca. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can

facilitate single or multiple broker-dealers' production of proprietary
data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are
virtually limitless.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products
must understand and respond to these varying business models and
pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products
successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, BATS Trading and Direct
Edge. Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The Court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
Court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
proprietary data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
The Exchange believes, however, that evidence not then before the court
clearly demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. Due
to competition among platforms, the Exchange intends to improve its
platform data offerings on a continuing basis, and to respond promptly
to customers' data needs.
    The intensity of competition for proprietary information is
significant and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly
evidences such competition. The Exchange is offering Historical Market
Data in order to keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving
customer needs. It is entirely optional and is geared towards
attracting new order flow. MIAX PEARL competitors continue to create
new market data products and innovative pricing in this space. In all
cases, the Exchange expects firms and other parties to make decisions
on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with MIAX PEARL or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are only one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this proprietary information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\15\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4\16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-PEARL-2017-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2017-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2017-35 and should be
submitted on or before November 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23480 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P