[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33801-33802]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

June 10, 2010.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

Agency Holding Meeting:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time:  June 17, 2010, 10 a.m.

Place:  Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Status:  Open.

Matters To Be Considered:  Agenda.

    Note: Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 960th--Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD02-1-000......................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2.....................  AD02-7-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
A-3.....................  AD09-10-000.....................  National Action Plan on Demand Response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  ER09-1048-000, ER06-615-059.....  California Independent System Operator Corporation.
E-2.....................  ER09-1049-000...................  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
                                                             Inc.
E-3.....................  ER09-1050-000, ER09-1192-000....  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-4.....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
E-5.....................  ER09-1063-000, ER09-1063-001....  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-6.....................  ER09-1142-000...................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-7.....................  ER10-1069-000...................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-8.....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
E-9.....................  RM10-23-000.....................  Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by
                                                             Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities.

E-10....................  RM09-25-000.....................  System Personnel Training Reliability Standards.
E-11....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
E-12....................  ER10-1117-000...................  Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC and Stetson Wind II,
                                                             LLC.
E-13....................  EL10-48-000, EC10-52-000........  Ameren Corporation.
                                                            Illinois Power Company.
                                                            Central Illinois Light Company.
                                                            Central Illinois Public Service Company.
                                                            Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC.
                                                            Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company.
E-14....................  ER09-1717-001...................  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
E-15....................  ER04-449-021....................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and New
                                                             York Transmission Owners.
E-16....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
E-17....................  ER09-1051-000...................  ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool.
E-18....................  EL10-52-000.....................  Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,
                                                             L.L.C.
E-19....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
E-20....................  EL09-72-001.....................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
E-21....................  EL09-12-000, EL09-12-001........  United States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power
                                                             Administration.
E-22....................  RM10-24-000.....................  Regional Transmission Organization/Independent
                                                             System Operator Responsiveness to Customers and
                                                             Other Stakeholders: Best Practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1.....................  RM07-9-003......................  Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting
                                                             Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.....................  RM07-10-002.....................  Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural
                                                             Gas Act.
G-2.....................  RP09-1086-001...................  Texican N. La. Transport, LLC v. Southern Natural
                                                             Gas Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  P-2283-072......................  FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC.
H-2.....................  P-2355-013......................  Exelon Corporation Company, LLC.
H-3.....................  P-2496-219......................  Eugene Water and Electric Board.
H-4.....................  P-382-085.......................  Southern California Edison Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  OMITTED.                          ....................................................
C-2.....................  CP08-6-004......................  Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    A free Webcast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free Webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact
Danelle Springer or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2010-14448 Filed 6-11-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25129-25130]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF14-5-000]

United States Department of Energy Bonneville Power
Administration;

    Notice of Filing
    Take notice that on April 23, 2014, the Bonneville Power
Administration

submitted its Proposed 2012 Wholesale Power and Transmission Rates Rate
Adjustment, OS-14 Rate Filing to be effective N/A.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2014.

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10092 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51732-51736]
[DOCID:fr05se08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199; FRL-8376-6]

Uniconazole-P; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of uniconazole-P, its R-enantiomer and its Z-isomer in or on vegetable,
fruiting, group 8. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 5, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 4, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

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

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before November 4, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964) (FRL-8350-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7268) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested
that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by adding a section for the fungicide
uniconazole-P and

establishing a tolerance therein for residues of uniconazole-P per se
in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm).
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent USA
Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the tolerance expression to include uniconazole-P, its R-
enantiomer and its Z-isomer. The reason for this change is explained in
Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for combined residues of uniconazole-P, its R-enantiomer and
its Z-isomer on vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.01 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing this
tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Uniconazole-P (hereafter referred to as uniconazole) is rapidly
absorbed after oral ingestion and extensively metabolized by the liver.
There is no accumulation in the tissues, and the metabolites are
rapidly excreted in the feces and urine. Uniconazole has moderate acute
oral toxicity and low acute dermal and inhalation toxicity. It is a
slight eye irritant but not a skin irritant or skin sensitizer. In
mouse, rat and dog repeated-dose studies, oral ingestion of high doses
caused an increase in the size and weight of the liver. Fat
accumulation in the liver was also consistently observed at high doses.
Although observed less consistently, increases in the activity of some
enzymes indicated altered liver function as a response to uniconazole
exposure. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the combined
chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat; however, in the
mouse study an increase in liver neoplasms was noted. Mutagenicity
studies were generally negative except for the in vitro mammalian
chromosome aberration test (CHO), which was positive with metabolic
activation. Based on the limited evidence of carcinogenicity in the
mouse, EPA classified uniconazole as a Group C (Possible Human)
carcinogen but concluded that quantification of cancer risk using a low
dose extrapolation model was not appropriate. The point of Departure
(POD) selected for deriving the chronic reference dose will adequately
account for all chronic effects determined to result from exposure to
uniconazole in chronic animal studies, including potential cancer
effects. Uniconazole had no effects on reproductive performance of rats
in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study and no effect on fetal
development in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. In the
developmental toxicity study in rats, developmental toxicity (increased
incidence of 14th ribs) was noted, but only at doses that
were also maternally toxic. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in
the submitted uniconazole toxicity studies or in the open literature.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by uniconazole, as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document Uniconazole-P Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits),
Crop Group 8 pages 52-75 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological POD is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be
defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the
lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the
LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach is sometimes used for risk
assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary
risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide
to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the
POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for uniconazole used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document Uniconazole-P Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses
on Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits), Crop Group 8 pages 26-27 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary

exposure to uniconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerance on fruiting vegetables, the first food use of
uniconazole. EPA assessed dietary exposures from uniconazole in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. EPA identified such an
effect relevant to the population group females, 13 years of age and
older (increased incidence of 14th rib following in utero
exposure to uniconazole in the rat developmental toxicity study). No
acute effects were identified for the general population, including
infants and children.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that all foods
covered by the fruiting vegetable tolerance contain tolerance-level
residues and that 100% of fruiting vegetables are treated with
uniconazole.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA again assumed that
all foods covered by the fruiting vegetable tolerance contain
tolerance-level residues and that 100% of fruiting vegetables are
treated with uniconazole.
    iii. Cancer. Based upon statistically significant increases in
hepatocellular neoplasms in high-dose male mice, EPA classified
uniconazole as a Group C (Possible Human) carcinogen but concluded that
quantification of cancer risk using a low dose extrapolation model was
not appropriate. This determination was based on the fact that the
tumor induced is primarily of a benign nature, occurred at the highest
dose tested in one sex of one species only with no acceleration in the
rate of tumor formation and did not exhibit any uncommon biological
behavior. The POD selected for deriving the chronic reference dose
(cRfD) will adequately account for all chronic effects determined to
result from exposure to uniconazole in chronic animal studies,
including potential cancer effects.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for uniconazole. Tolerance level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for uniconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of uniconazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of uniconazole for
acute exposures are estimated to be 3.1 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.076 ppb for ground water; and for chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.5 ppb for surface
water and 0.076 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 3.1 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 1.5 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Uniconazole is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Uniconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides, sometimes referred to as conazoles. Although conazoles act
similarly in fungi by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not
necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their
mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not
constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to
establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the
same, sequence of major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a
variable pattern of toxicological responses is found. Some are
hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors
in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive and neurological
effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range
of biochemical events, including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Uniconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and several
triazole conjugates (including triazole alanine, triazole acetic acid,
triazole pyruvic acid and triazole lactic acid). To support existing
tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative
pesticides, including uniconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk
assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazole alanine, and
triazole acetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending
uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. Triazole pyruvic acid and
triazole lactic acid were not included in the risk assessment due to
their low occurrence in metabolism studies. The risk assessment is a
highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards
associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination
of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures
(i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures).
In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor
for the protection of infants and children. The assessment includes
evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised
of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found
in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://
www.regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-

HQ-OPP-2005-0497). Additional information regarding the uses proposed
for uniconazole in this action can also be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the documents Dietary Exposure Assessments for
the Common Triazole Metabolites 1,2,4-Triazole, Triazolylalanine,
Triazolylacetic Acid, and Triazolylypyruvic Acid; Updated to Include
New Uses of Fenbuconazole, Ipconazole, Metconazole, Tebuconazole, and
Uniconazole; and a Change in Plant-back Restriction for Tetraconazole
and Uniconazole-P: Acute, Chronic and Cancer Aggregate Dietary (Food
and Drinking Water) Exposure Analyses for the Section 3 Registration
Action in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for uniconazole includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. There was no evidence of increased qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility of rabbit fetuses following in utero
exposure to uniconazole and no evidence of increased susceptibility of
offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. There was
evidence of increased qualitatative susceptibility of fetuses in the
rat developmental study. In this study, an increased incidence of
14th rib in the fetuses was observed in the presence of
minimal maternal toxicity (decreased body weight). The degree of
concern for the qualitative susceptibility seen in the rat
developmental study is low because:
     The additional rib was the only skeletal variation noted
     The fetal effect occurred only in the presence of maternal
toxicity
     In the reproduction study in rats, higher doses resulted
in minimal pup toxicity (slightly reduced body weights); and:
     The NOAEL for the fetal effect is used for assessing acute
risk of females 13 years and older and is, therefore, protective of
potential developmental effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The uniconazole database is adequate to assess prenatal and
postnatal toxicity.
    ii. There is no indication that uniconazole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental study in rats, EPA did not
identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of
uniconazole. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed
assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to uniconazole in drinking water. Residential
exposure to uniconazole is not expected. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by uniconazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
uniconazole will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old,
the only population group for which an acute endpoint of concern was
identified.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
uniconazole from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the
general population and all population subgroups, including infants and
children. There are no residential uses for uniconazole.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Uniconazole
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from exposure to uniconazole through food and water
and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
determined that the chronic risk assessment based on the established
cPAD is protective of potential cancer effects. Based on the results of
the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit E.2, EPA concludes
that uniconazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to uniconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography/Nitrogen
Phosphorus Detector (GC/NPD); Valent Method RM-25-1b) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs have been established for
uniconazole.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerance

    The petitioner proposed a tolerance for residues of uniconazole-P
per se in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8. However, based on the
results of plant metabolism studies, EPA has determined that the
residues of concern to be included in the tolerance expression for
fruiting vegetables are uniconazole-P, its R-enantiomer and its Z-
isomer. Therefore, EPA has modified the tolerance expression to include
all three compounds.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
uniconazole-P, (E)-(S)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)pent-1-en-3-ol, its R-enantiomer and its Z-isomer in or on
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 26, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.643 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.643  Uniconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide/plant growth regulator uniconazole-P, (E)-(S)-1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)pent-1-en-3-ol, its
R-enantiomer and its Z-isomer in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8...............................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. E8-20548 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27375-27379]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60015; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules To Implement the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan

June 1, 2009.
    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 May 11, 2009, the NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to implement the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange'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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to implement the Plan. These
rules will replace Rules 990NY through 993NY of the Exchange's rules in
their entirety. The proposed rules also will amend or remove various
other rules to accommodate the Plan.
Background to the Plan and the Implementing Rules
    NYSE Amex filed the current version of the Plan on November 25,
2008.\3\ The Plan would replace the current Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Old Plan'').
The Old Plan requires its participant exchanges to operate a stand-
alone system or ``Linkage'' for sending order-flow between exchanges to
limit trade-throughs. The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
operates the Linkage system. The Linkage rules provide for unique types
of Linkage orders, with a complicated set of requirements as to who may
send such orders and under what conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The November 25, 2008 filing was Amendment No. 1 to the
Plan. The American Stock Exchange LLC (the predecessor to NYSE Amex
LLC) initially filed the Plan on June 17, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Linkage largely has operated satisfactorily, it is under
significant strain. When the Commission approved the Old Plan in 2000,
average daily volume (``ADV'') in the options market was approximately
2.6 million contracts across all exchanges. Now the ADV has increased
to more than 10 million contracts, putting added strain on the ability
of market makers to comply with the complex Linkage rules. At the same
time, the options markets have been moving towards quoting in pennies,
and are quoting in pennies options representing over half the total
industry

volume. This greatly increases the number of price changes in an
option, giving rise to greater chances of trade-throughs and missing
markets as market makers send Linkage orders and have to wait for a
response.
    Experience in the equities markets shows that there is a more
efficient way to provide price protection in options. When first
implemented, the Linkage represented a vast improvement over the then-
current equities price-protection system, which depended on the
operation of the Intermarket Trading System (``ITS''). The plan
governing ITS imposed long waiting times for filling ITS commitments
and a cumbersome method for satisfying trade-throughs. Learning from
the shortcomings of ITS, the options Linkage has shorter waiting
periods and more efficient trade-through protections.
    The equity price-protection mechanisms have now leapfrogged the
options Linkage. By adopting Regulation NMS in 2005 the Commission
effectively terminated ITS, replacing it with a rules-based price-
protection system.\4\ The key to Regulation NMS's price-protection
provisions is the Intermarket Sweep Order, or ISO. Each equity exchange
must adopt rules ``reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs.'' \5\
Exempted from trade-through liability is an ISO, which is an order a
member sends to an exchange displaying a price inferior to the national
best bid and offer (``NBBO''), while simultaneously sending orders to
trade against the full size of any other exchange that is displaying
the NBBO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Release No. 34-51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29,
2005).
    \5\ Regulation NMS Rule 611(a).
    \6\ Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulation NMS rules-based price-protection system is working
well. It requires neither a central linkage mechanism nor a complex set
of operating rules. It also has eliminated the need for achieving
unanimity to change even the most minor aspects of a linkage mechanism.
A simple prohibition against most trade-throughs, coupled with the ISO
mechanism, has given the equities markets a straight-forward system to
provide customers with price protection in a fast-moving, high-volume
market that is quoted in pennies. NYSE Amex and the other options
exchange participants in the Plan intend for the Plan, and the
implementing rules, to bring the efficiencies of Regulation NMS to the
options market.
Operation of the Plan
    The Plan effectively would apply the Regulation NMS price-
protection provisions to the options markets. Similar to Regulation
NMS, the Plan would require participants to adopt rules ``reasonably
designed to prevent Trade-Throughs,'' while exempting ISOs from that
prohibition.\7\ The definition of an ISO is essentially the same as
under Regulation NMS,\8\ and there are a number of additional
exceptions to the trade-through prohibition. Like Regulation NMS,\9\
the Plan requires participating exchanges to take reasonable steps to
establish that ISOs meet the requirements of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sections 5(a)(i) and 5(b)(iv) of the Plan.
    \8\ Section 2(9) of the Plan.
    \9\ Regulation NMS Rule 611(c) and Section 5(c) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to locked and crossed markets, similar to Regulation
NMS the Plan requires its participants to adopt, maintain and enforce
rules requiring members: to avoid displaying locked and crossed
markets; to reconcile such markets; and to prohibit members from
engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying locked and crossed
markets.\10\ With respect to locked markets, the Plan differs from
Regulation NMS in that it specifically permits exceptions to the locked
market prohibitions ``as contained in the rules of a Participant
approved by the Commission.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section 6 of the Plan.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Implementing Rules
    The Exchange proposes to define ``Intermarket Sweep Order'' as a
new order type in proposed Rule 900.3NY(t).
    Other proposed rule changes would amend and replace NYSE Amex's
current Linkage rules in Rules 940 and 990NY-993NY as described below:
Rule 990NY--Definitions
    This proposed rule incorporates all the operative definitions from
the Plan into the NYSE Amex rulebook. With one exception, the parties
to the Plan derived all such definitions either from the Old Plan \12\
or Regulation NMS.\13\ The one exception is the definition of ``complex
trade'' in Rule 990NY(4). A ``complex trade'' is exempt from trade-
through liability. The exemption in the Old Plan simply refers to
complex trades ``as that term may be defined by the Operating Committee
from time to time.'' Based on that provision, the Exchange had
previously adopted current Rule 940(b)(3), which is substantially
identical among all the options exchanges. We propose to carry that
definition into the revised Rule 990NY unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., the definitions of ``Broker-Dealer'' in Rule
990NY(3), NBBO in Rule 990NY(10), Non-Firm in Rule 990NY(11), OPRA
Plan in Rule 990NY(12), and Participant in Rule 990NY(13).
    \13\ See, e.g., the definitions of ``Best Bid''/``Best Offer''
in Rule 990NY(1), ``Bid''/``Offer'' in Rule 990NY(2), ``Intermarket
Sweep Order (``ISO'')'' in Rule 900.3NY(t), and ``Quotation'' in
Rule 990NY(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 991NY--Order Protection
    Paragraph (a) of Rule 991NY provides that, subject to specified
exceptions, NYSE Amex ATP Holders shall not effect trade-throughs.
Paragraph (b) provides for the following trade-through exceptions:
     System Issues: Rule 991NY(b)(1) implements Section 5(b)(i)
of the Plan by establishing an exception for trade-throughs due to
system-failures. This is akin to the exception in Regulation NMS for
equity securities and permits trading through an Eligible Exchange that
is experiencing system problems.\14\ The Exchange is proposing ``self-
help'' rules similar to its NYSE Amex Equities Rule 126A-AEMI, adopted
pursuant to Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trading Rotations: Rule 991NY(b)(2) implements Section
5(b)(ii) of the Plan and carries forward the current trade-through
exception in the Old Plan \15\ and current Rule 991NY (b)(5) related to
the opening of markets. It is the options equivalent to the single
price opening exception in Regulation NMS for equity securities.\16\
NYSE Amex uses a trading auction to open an option for trading, or to
reopen an option after a trading halt. The opening is effectively a
single price auction to price the option and there are no practical
means to include prices on other exchanges in that auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(E).
    \16\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(3) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Crossed Markets: Rule 991NY(b)(3) implements Section
5(b)(iii) of the Plan and is the functional equivalent to NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 128C-AEMI for equity securities. If the best
intermarket bid is higher than the best intermarket offer, it indicates
that there is some form of market dislocation or inaccurate quoting.
Permitting transactions to be executed without regard to trade-throughs
in a Crossed Market will allow the market quickly return to
equilibrium.
     Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs''): Rule 991NY(b)(4) is
the ISO exemption and implements Sections 5(b)(iv) and (v) of the Plan.
Section 5(b)(iv) of the Plan permits a Participant to execute

orders it receives from other Participants or members that are marked
as ISO even when it is not at the NBBO. Section 5(b)(v) of the Plan
allows a Participant to execute inbound orders when it is not at the
NBBO, provided it simultaneously ``sweeps'' all better-priced interest
displayed by Eligible Exchanges. These provisions are the options
equivalents of the corresponding Regulation NMS equity rules.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Regulation NMS Rules 611(b)(5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Quote Flickering: Rule 991NY(b)(5) implements Section
5(b)(vi) of the Plan and corresponds to the flickering quote exception
in Regulation NMS for equity securities.\18\ Options quotations change
as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than equity quotations. Indeed, they
track the price of the underlying security and thus change when the
price of the underlying security changes. This exception provides a
form of ``safe harbor'' to market participants to allow them to trade
through prices that have changed within a second of the transaction
causing a nominal trade-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-Firm Quotes: Rule 991NY(b)(6) implements Section
5(b)(vii) of the Plan and carries forward the current non-firm quote
trade-through exception in the Old Plan.\19\ By definition, an
exchange's quotations may not be firm for automatic execution during
this trading state and thus should not be protected from trade-
throughs. In effect, these quotations are akin to ``manual quotations''
under Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Complex Trades: Rule 991NY(b)(7) implements Section
5(b)(viii) of the Plan and carries forward the current complex trade
exception in the Old Plan.\20\ Complex trades consist of multiple
transactions (``legs'') effected at a net price, and it is not
practical to price each leg at a price that does not constitute a
trade-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Customer Stopped Orders: Rule 991NY(b)(8) implements
Section 5(b)(ix) of the Plan and corresponds to the customer stopped
order exception in Regulation NMS for equity securities.\21\ It permits
broker-dealers to execute large orders over time at a price agreed upon
by a customer, even though the price of the option may change before
the order is executed in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Stopped Orders and Price Improvement: Rule 991NY(b)(9)
implements Section 5(b)(x) of the Plan and would apply if an order is
stopped at price that did not constitute a trade-through at the time of
the stop. This exception applies to those exchanges that offer a
``Price Improvement Mechanism'' by which members could seek price
improvement for that order, even if the market moves in the interim,
and the transaction ultimately is effected at a price that would trade
through the then currently-displayed market.\22\ NYSE Amex does not
currently permit these types of options trades, and any transaction-
type relying on this exemption would require the Exchange to adopt
implementing rules, subject to Commission review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, for instance, ISE Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Benchmark Trades: Rule 991NY(b)(10) implements Section
5(b)(xi) of the Plan and would cover trades executed at a price not
tied to the price of an option at the time of execution, and for which
the material terms were not reasonably determinable at the time of the
commitment to make the trade. An example would be a volume-weighted
average price trade, or ``VWAP.'' This corresponds to a trade-through
exemption in Regulation NMS for equity trades.\23\ NYSE Amex does not
currently permit these types of options trades, and any transaction-
type relying on this exemption would require the Exchange to adopt
implementing rules, subject to Commission review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 992NY--Locked and Crossed Markets
    Proposed Rule 992NY implements Section 6 of the Plan, which
requires Plan participants to establish, maintain and enforce rules
that: require their members reasonably to avoid displaying locked and
crossed markets; are reasonably designed to assure reconciliation of
locked and crossed markets; and prohibit their members from engaging in
a pattern or practice of displaying locked and crossed markets. Section
6 of the Plan further allows an exchange to provide exceptions to these
limitations as ``contained in the rules of a Participant approved by
the Commission.''
    Proposed Rule 992NY(a) contains the general prohibition that NYSE
Amex ATP Holders shall reasonably avoid displaying, and shall not
engage in a pattern or practice of displaying, any quotations that lock
or cross the best bid or offer of another exchange. We propose four
exceptions to this general prohibition.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See e-mail from Andrew Stevens, Chief Counsel--U.S.
Equities & Derivatives, NYSE Euronext, to David Liu, Assistant
Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated May 29,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first exception would apply when we are experiencing system
issues, and is similar to the systems issues exception to the trade-
through rule. The second exception applies when there is a crossed
market, and also is similar to the corresponding trade-through
exception. The third exception would apply when an ATP Holder has
simultaneously routed an ISO to execute against the full displayed size
of any locked or crossed Protected Bid or Protected Offer. The fourth
proposed exception applies to locked markets in the following
circumstances: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Neither the locking or locked quote represents, in whole
or in part, a customer order; or
     A customer enters a bid or offer that locks a non-customer
quotation on another market, and the customer, on a case-by-case basis,
authorizes the locking of the other market's quotation.
    This fourth \26\ exemption recognizes an important distinction
between the equities and options markets. Options market makers compete
for order flow by disseminating quotations in multiple series with
respect to each underlying security, distributing liquidity over a much
greater universe of products than in the equity markets. As a result,
the options markets are more reliant on market maker quotations to
provide liquidity, with fewer customer orders in each series than in
each underlying security, where liquidity is concentrated in one
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With market makers on multiple exchanges constantly updating their
quotations in all these series based on mathematical formulae there is
a greater likelihood of market maker quotations locking. We believe
that in most cases locked market maker quotations are good for the
investing public. Effectively locked markets provide a ``zero spread,''
allowing market participants to buy and sell an option at the same
price. On NYSE Amex these quotations are firm, and are fully executable
on an automated basis.
    We recognize that locked markets are more complicated where one or
both of the locking quotations represents a customer order. Where there
is contra-side market interest willing to trade with a customer, the
customer order should be filled. Thus, we would not exempt from the
locked market prohibition situations involving customer orders unless
the customer entering the locking order specifically

authorizes the lock on a case-by-case basis.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ We can envision a customer authorizing a lock when the fees
associating with trading against the locked market make the
execution price uneconomical to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will not implement this proposed exception to the
locked market prohibition unless the Exchange can identify that an
order on another exchange is for the account of a customer. The options
exchanges currently are working on a method to so identify customer
quotations through the Options Price Reporting Authority. Absent the
ability to identify a customer quote as part of an exchange's BBO, NYSE
Amex will assume that the quote represents, in whole or in part, a
customer order. That is, NYSE Amex will not permit its members to avail
themselves of this exemption unless another exchange has informed the
Exchange that it will designate all customer orders as such at OPRA,
and such exchange's quotation does not contain such designation. If an
exchange opts not to identify its customer quotations, the Exchange
will treat all of that exchange's quotations as customer orders and,
absent application of another exception, will not permit locks of such
quotations.
    The Exchange also proposes that the exemption is only operative for
as long as the Exchange is willing to identify Customer orders in its
own quote.
Temporary Rule 993NY--Temporary Rule Governing P and P/A Orders
    When the Plan and implementing rules become operative it is
possible that not all the options exchanges will be functionally able
to operate pursuant to the Plan. Thus, in order to ensure there is full
intermarket trade-through protection during this interim period, we
propose to retain certain minimum trade-through rules based on the Old
Plan until all the options exchanges are operating pursuant to the
Plan. When that occurs we will file a rule change with the Commission
to delete Temporary Rule 993NY.
    Temporary Rule 993NY provides that NYSE Amex will continue to
accept Principal Acting as Agent (``P/A'') and Principal Orders from
options exchanges which have not fully discontinued use of the OCC
managed routing hub. The handling of these orders will be subject to
Temporary Rule 993NY.
Amendment of Other NYSE Amex Rules To Accommodate the Plan
    We propose to amend four NYSE Amex rules in addition to those
described above. First, Rule 921NY, Registration of Market Makers,
allows certain Market Makers to act in an agency capacity for the
purpose of sending Principal Acting as Agent (``P/A'') Orders through
the Linkage. With the termination of the Linkage such provision no
longer will be necessary and we thus propose to delete this provision.
    Second, Rule 923NY, Appointment of Market Makers, Commentaries
.01-.03 describes Intermarket Linkage Market Makers (``IMM'') and
described when and how IMMs would be appointed, and the procedures that
governed their appointment. With the termination of the Linkage such
provisions will no longer be necessary and we thus propose to delete
them.
    Rule 964NY, Display, Priority and Order Allocation--Trading
Systems, will be amended to remove references to the Intermarket
Linkage.
    Finally, Rule 476A, Minor Rule Plan, describes certain violations
which are part of an expedited disciplinary process, and their
attendant fines. The Exchange proposes to modify those violations which
are related to the Linkage and make them applicable to the Plan and the
proposed Rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').\28\ The
basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ in that the proposed rule change is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that adopting rules that
implement the Plan will facilitate the trading of options in a national
market system by establishing more efficient protection against trade-
throughs and locked and crossed markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2009-19 and should be submitted on or before June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13394 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 24344]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD17-8-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Thursday, June 22,
2017, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will
be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of
the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System. Attached is an agenda for this event.
    The conference will be open for the public to attend. There is no
fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to
preregister online at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-22-17-form.asp.
    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with
Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by
navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov and
locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1 (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact:
    Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10825 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P