[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10416-10418]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63929; File No. SR-EDGA-2010-18]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 2 to Amend EDGA Rules 11.9 and
11.5 Regarding Step-up Orders

February 18, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On November 8, 2010, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend EDGA Rule 11.9 regarding the description
of the Step-up order type \3\ and add Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7) to allow
Mid-Point Match orders \4\ entered in response to Step-up orders to be
processed pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.9. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 24, 2010.\5\
On November 23, 2010, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. On December 14, 2010, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 23, 2010.\6\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal,\7\ and received the
Exchange's response to the comment letter.\8\ This order institutes
proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2. Institution of disapproval proceedings, however, does
not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(11) defines a ``Step-up'' order as a
``market or limit order with the instruction that the System display
the order to Users at or within the NBBO price pursuant to Rule
11.9(b)(1)(C).''
    \4\ The Exchange proposes to define a ``Mid-Point Match'' order
as an ``order entered in response to a Step-up Order * * * with an
instruction to execute it at the midpoint of the NBBO.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63335 (November 18,
2010), 75 FR 71783.
    \6\ Amendment No. 2 replaced in its entirety the original filing
and Amendment No. 1. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63572
(December 17, 2010), 75 FR 80873.
    \7\ See Letter dated December 15, 2010, from Janet L.
McGuinness, Senior Vice President--Legal and Corporate Secretary,
Legal & Government Affairs, NYSE Euronext to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission (``NYSE Euronext Letter''). The NYSE Euronext
Letter opposes the proposed rule change and, in so doing, expresses
support for the Commission's recent proposal that would eliminate
the exception for ``flash orders'' from Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60684 (September 18, 2009),
74 FR 48632 (September 23, 2009) (the ``Flash Order Proposed
Rulemaking'').
    \8\ See Letter dated January 18, 2011, from Eric Hess, General
Counsel, DirectEdge Holdings, LLC (``Direct Edge''), to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission.
    \9\ As noted above, the Commission has issued a proposed
rulemaking that, if adopted, could impact the permissibility of the
Step-up orders of the Exchange that are the subject of the proposed
rule change. See Flash Order Proposed Rulemaking, supra note 7. The
Commission emphasizes that this institution of proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change in no way
prejudges or otherwise determines what action, if any, the
Commission may take with respect to the Flash Order Proposed
Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(11) defines a ``Step-up'' order as a ``market
or limit order with the instruction that the System display the order
to Users at or within the NBBO price pursuant to Rule 11.9(b)(1)(C).''
Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1)(C), in turn, states that Step-up orders shall
be displayed to Users (hereinafter referred to as ``Members''),\10\

in a manner that is separately identifiable from other Exchange orders,
at or within the NBBO price for a period of time not to exceed five
hundred milliseconds, as determined by the Exchange (the ``Step-up
Display Period''). Step-up orders are intended to permit a Member to
initiate a price auction of such orders by displaying order
solicitation information to other Members simultaneously, provided such
other Members have elected to receive such order information. Under the
current rules, the first responsive Member order would execute against
the Step-up order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Exchange Rule 1.5(cc) defines a User as ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1) provides
that (prior to display of an order to a User), an incoming order
shall first attempt to be matched for execution against orders in
the EDGA Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to specify the Step-up Display Period as 10
milliseconds, and eliminate the discretion afforded to the Exchange in
its existing Rule to vary the length of the Step-up Display Period. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1)(C) to
provide that, at the conclusion of the Step-up Display Period, the
Step-up order shall execute against responsive Member orders priced at
or within the NBBO on a price/time priority basis consistent with
Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(1) and (2). The Exchange further proposes that,
commencing on the six month anniversary of a Commission approval order,
the orders eligible for executing against Step-up orders shall be
expanded to include Member orders priced better but not outside the
NBBO at the end of the Step-up Display Period that may have entered the
Exchange book outside the Step-up process (such orders, ``Eligible Book
Orders'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Responses are accumulated for the Step-up Display Period by
the Exchange, rather than processed at arrival time. Eligible Book
Orders will continue to be eligible for execution against the EDGA
Book during the Step-up Display Period, as they do currently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7) to allow
Mid-Point Match orders that are entered in response to Step-up orders
to participate in the price auction. The Exchange will not accept
orders priced in subpennies during Step-up auctions. The Exchange
believes a midpoint response will provide an additional mechanism for a
Member that is willing to offer price improvement, but is unwilling to
cross the spread between the NBBO, to do so. By providing this option,
the Exchange believes that a greater proportion of Step-up orders will
receive price improvement.
    The Step-up order process will not generate an execution if the
market is crossed for the security that is the subject of a Step-up
order. If the market is crossed, or if there are no responsive Member
orders at or within the NBBO, at the end of the Step-up Display Period,
the Step-up process shall terminate and the Step-up order shall be
cancelled or routed in accordance with the Member's instructions.
    The Exchange finally proposes to make conforming changes to the
numbering of current rules as a result of the insertion of the Mid-
Point Match order type in Rule 11.5(c)(7), as described above.
Similarly, the references to the newly numbered rules are also proposed
to be amended in Rule 11.5(c) and Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C).

III. Summary of Comments

    In its comment letter on the original filing, NYSE Euronext opposes
the proposed rule change on several grounds. NYSE Euronext argues that
the Step-up auction mechanism will increase the number of orders whose
execution is artificially delayed, including both Step-up orders and
those responding to them, and thus increase the number of orders
missing execution opportunities in other markets. NYSE Euronext also
believes that, by proposing to ultimately make Eligible Book Orders
eligible for execution against Step-up orders, the proposed rule change
would eliminate an Exchange member's choice as to whether its orders
will interact with Step-up orders. Finally, NYSE Euronext expresses
concern that allowing Mid-Point Match orders to be submitted in
response to a Step-up order ``further expands the use of [the
Exchange's] flash mechanism.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NYSE Euronext Letter, supra note 7, at p. 3. As noted
above, NYSE Euronext also expresses support for the Flash Order
Proposed Rulemaking. This order addresses only those portions of the
NYSE Euronext Letter that specifically address the Exchange's
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Direct Edge, on behalf of the Exchange, responds that it is not
offering an expansion of the flash order type, but rather an auction
process that has significant similarities to those used by the NYSE,
and notes that the duration of its auction will be the shortest in the
securities markets.\13\ Direct Edge further argues that the Step-up
auction process creates meaningful price improvement opportunities for
investors while helping brokers to satisfy their best execution
obligations. Direct Edge also believes that expanding participation in
the auction to both Eligible Book Orders and Mid-Point Match orders
will both increase price competition and expand member choice.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Direct Edge Letter, supra note 8, at p. 2.
    \14\ See id. at p. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-EDGA-2010-18 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \15\ to determine whether the Exchange's proposed
rule change should be disapproved. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act,\16\ the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for
disapproval under consideration. Under the proposal, the Exchange would
create a 10 millisecond auction for responding to Step-up orders and
would expand the order types able to interact with Step-up orders
during the Step-up auction process. The Act and the rules thereunder
require, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to not permit unfair
discrimination among broker-dealers and customers and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\17\ The Commission is
concerned that the Exchange's proposal may be inconsistent with these
standards. Specifically, the Commission is concerned about the extent
to which a 10 millisecond auction would provide a meaningful
opportunity for price improvement, or would materially increase the
risk that a Step-up order will miss an execution. The Commission notes
that the Exchange has not provided any data with respect to the impact
of its proposed 10 millisecond auction on these issues. The Commission
is also concerned about the potential implications of the Step-up
auction process, because Eligible Book Orders would not be able to
participate in the Step-up auction for six-months from the date of a
Commission approval order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
Id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for
up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension
and publishes its reasons for so finding. Id.
    \17\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the issues raised by the proposal, the Commission has
determined to institute disapproval proceedings at this time to
determine whether the Commission should disapprove the proposed rule
change. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate,
however, that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to the issues involved. The sections of the Act and

the rules thereunder that are applicable to the proposed rule change
include:
     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 11A(a) of the Act, in which Congress found that it
is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure
``economically efficient execution of securities transactions,'' ``fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets,''
``the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities,'' and
``the practicability of brokers executing investors' orders in the best
market.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by April 11, 2011. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by April 25, 2011. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to disapproval which would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany
S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the merit of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any
other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2010-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-18. The 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/other.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
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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2010-18 and should be
submitted on or before April 11, 2011. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by April 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4158 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16256]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07744]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-118-000]

Notice of Application: Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company LLC

    Take notice that on March 29, 2019, Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company
LLC (Trans-Foreland), 539 South Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840 filed
an application in Docket No. CP19-118-000 pursuant to section 3(a) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations
requesting authorization to construct and install modifications to the
existing Kenai LNG Plant located in Kenai, Alaska. Trans-Foreland
proposes to make facility modifications to bring parts of Kenai LNG
Plant out of its current warm idle status and add a 1,000 horsepower
electric-driven boil-off gas compressor unit. Trans-Foreland avers that
Kenai LNG Plant facilities will not be used to render any
transportation service, as more fully described in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866)
208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Martin J. Marz, Tariff Manager, Tesoro Logistics GP LLC, 19100
Ridgewood Parkway, San Antonio, Texas 78259, by telephone at (210) 626-
6517, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or
section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a party to a
certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking
to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to show good cause why
the time limitation should be waived, and should provide justification
by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: May 3, 2019.

    Dated: April 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07744 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85654]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4561-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Major Disaster and
Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa (FEMA-4561-
DR), dated September 10, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.C

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 10, 2020, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa resulting from severe
storms and straight-line winds on August 10, 2020, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists for the Sac & Fox Tribe of the
Mississippi in Iowa.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation for the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, DuWayne Tewes, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa for Public
Assistance.
    The Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa is eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-28730 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Date: October 14, 2005 Subject: Triadimenol. Registrants Response to Residue Chemistry Data Requirements. Field Corn, Cotton, and Wheat Processing Studies.

DP Barcode: D322336 PC Code: 127201 40 CFR § : 180.410 Chemical Class: Azole MRID Numbers: 44519801, 44519802, and 44519803 From: Samuel Ary, Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Through: Yvonne Barnes, Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

William Hazel, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

To: Richard Griffin, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

John Pates, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch I Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

This document was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation ( 2275 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850; submitted August 16, 2000). The document has been reviewed by the Health Effects Division ( HED) and revised to reflect current Office of Pesticide Program ( OPP) policies. INTRODUCTION 2 In response to the Triadimenol Data Call In ( 3/ 8/ 1996), Gustafson, Inc, has submitted data pertaining to the magnitude of triadimenol residues of concern in the processed commodities of field corn ( 1998; MRID 44519801), cotton ( 1998; MRID 44519802) and wheat ( 1998; MRID 44519803). These data are evaluated in this document for adequacy in fulfilling residue chemistry data requirements.

Triadimenol,  ( 4 chlorophenoxy)  ( 1,1 dimethylethyl) 1H 1,2,4 triazole 1 ethanol, is a systemic fungicide registered for use in the United States as a seed treatment for barley, corn, cotton, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat. Additionally, an import tolerance on bananas has been established. Triadimenol end use products are marketed in the U. S. under the trade name Baytan ® . The reregistration of triadimenol is being supported by Bayer CropScience ( Bayer), the basic producer. The triadimenol formulations registered for food/ feed uses include wettable powder ( WP), flowable concentrate ( FlC), emulsifiable concentrate ( EC), and soluble concentrate ( SC) formulations.

Tolerances are established for residues of triadimenol and 1( 4 chlorophenoxy) 3,3 dimethyl 3 hydroxymethyl 1( 1H 1,2,4 triazol 1 yl) 2 butanol ( KWG 1342; calculated as triadimenol) in/ on various plant commodities [ 40 CFR § 180.450( a)]. The established tolerances for plant commodities range from 0.01 ppm ( sorghum grain and fodder) to 2.5 ppm ( green forage of oats, rye, and wheat). Tolerances are established for residues of triadimenol and its metabolites containing the chlorophenoxy moiety ( calculated as triadimenol) in/ on livestock commodities at 0.01 ppm ( milk, and poultry commodities) and 0.1 ppm ( fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep).

Triadimenol and its butanediol metabolite ( KWG 1342) are also regulated as metabolites of the fungicide triadimefon ( 40 CFR § 180.410).

The reregistration requirements for plant metabolism have not been fulfilled. No metabolism studies with triadimenol have been submitted; however, metabolism studies with triadimefon have been received and reviewed. The Health Effects Division ( HED) has examined the results of these studies and determined that the triadimefon residues of concern in/ on apples, grapes, pears, pineapples, and raspberries for tolerance expression are triadimefon and triadimenol and for risk assessment are triadimefon, triadimenol, KWG 1323 [ 1( 4 chlorophenoxy) 3,3 dimethyl 3 hydroxymethyl 1( 1H 1,2,4 triazol 1 yl) 2 butanone], and KWG 1342 ( S. Ary, D314742, 11/ 23/ 2005). Of these compounds, triadimenol and KWG 1342 are currently regulated for plant commodities.

HED has determined that translation of metabolism data from triadimefon to triadimenol is not appropriate for the existing uses on cereal grains and cotton. The metabolism studies with triadimefon were conducted using a foliar application and triadimenol is used only as a seed treatment. Additionally, in the submitted triadimenol seed treatment wheat study, residues in grain were not identifiable due to the low activity found in wheat grain. Therefore, HED concludes that the nature of the residue in cereal grains and cotton is not adequately understood; however, based on chemical structure and the probable metabolic pathway of triadimenol, the residues of concern for tolerance expression and risk assessment are likely to be triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 in/ on cereal grains ( barley, corn, oats, rye, and wheat) and cotton. Separate metabolism studies with triazole 14C and phenyl 14C labeled triadimenol applied as a seed treatment to corn or wheat and cotton should be conducted to confirm the residues of concern. The residues of concern for tolerance expression and risk assessment for bananas are triadimenol and KWG 1342. 3 The Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM) Vol. II does not contain a listing for triadimenol ( February 1997 Index). However, the methods listed for triadimefon can be used for the determination of triadimenol, KWG 1323, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732. PAM lists two gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection ( GC/ MS) methods ( Methods I and II) for the determination of triadimenol and its free and conjugated metabolites in plant and livestock commodities. Both methods are common moiety methods. The reported limit of quantitation ( LOQ) is 0.05 and limit of detection ( LOD) is 0.01 ppm for both methods.

In conjunction with triadimefon reregistration, Bayer has proposed a GC/ MS method ( Report No. 106549) for enforcement of tolerances for residues of triadimefon, triadimenol, KWG 1342, KWG 1323, and KWG 1732 in/ on barley, corn, cotton, oat, rye, and wheat commodities. The method has been successfully radiovalidated and has undergone independent laboratory validation. The reported method LOQ is 0.05 ppm for each analyte in cereal grains and 0.02 ppm in each analyte in cotton. Additionally, a GC method using a nitrogen phosphorus detector ( NPD; Report No. 80488) is available for determination of residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1323 and is adequate for the enforcement of the banana tolerance. The method has undergone a successful Agency method validation on tomatoes and was submitted to the FDA for publication in PAM Vol. II. The reported method LOQ is 0.01 ppm for each analyte.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Processed Food/ Feed 1. Field corn: The submitted data are adequate to fulfill the requirement for a field corn grain processing study. As triadimenol residues of concern were each below the LOQ ( 0.05 ppm) in/ on corn grain grown from seed treated at 5x the maximum application rate, a corn grain processing study and tolerances for field corn processed commodities are not required.

2. Cotton: The submitted data are adequate to fulfill the requirement for a cottonseed processing study. As triadimenol residues of concern were each below the LOQ ( 0.02 ppm) in/ on cottonseed grown from seed treated at 5x the maximum application rate, a cottonseed processing study and tolerances for cotton processed commodities are not required.

3. Wheat: The available wheat grain data do not fulfill the requirement for a wheat grain processing study. Residues of triadimenol and KWG 1342 were each < LOQ (< 0.05 ppm) and residues of KWG 1732 were 0.11 ppm and 0.23 ppm in/ on two samples of wheat grain grown from seed treated with triadimenol ( FlC) at 5x the maximum rate. However, the treated grain was not processed. Instead, the registrant proposed translating data from a triadimefon wheat grain processing study; however, these data cannot be translated to triadimenol due to differences in the use patterns ( seed treatment vs. late season foliar sprays) that are likely to impact the potential for concentration of residues in grain. The registrant should conduct a processing study using the available wheat grain grown from the seeds treated with triadimenol at 5x. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS Residue Analytical Methods Samples of field corn grain, cottonseed, and wheat grain were analyzed for residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 at ABC Laboratories ( Columbia, MO) using a 4 GC/ MS method ( Bayer Corporation Report No. 106549). This method has been proposed for enforcement of tolerances for triadimefon residues of concern and has undergone successful independent laboratory validation ( J. Punzi; D222403, D227497, and D227543; 7/ 13/ 2000).

Briefly, residues are extracted under reflux in methanol: water ( 7: 3, v: v) for 2 hours and then concentrated to an aqueous solution. The extract is then hydrolyzed with cellulase at 37 C overnight ( at pH 5.5) and partitioned with dichloromethane: acetonitrile ( 3: 2, v: v). The aqueous phase, containing KWG 1732, is reserved. The organic phase is dried using sodium sulfate and evaporated to dryness, and residues are redissolved in ethyl acetate, cleaned up by gel permeation chromatography, and separated by semi preparative HPLC into two fractions: one containing triadimenol and the other containing KWG 1342. Triadimenol was determined directly by GC/ MS; KWG 1342 was derivatized prior to GC/ MS analysis. The reported LOQ was 0.05 ppm for each analyte in field corn and wheat grain and 0.02 ppm for each analyte in cottonseed.

The reserved aqueous phase, containing KWG 1732, is acidified to pH 1 ( using concentrated HCl) and the residues are partitioned into ethyl acetate. The residues are then partitioned into 0.5 M sodium carbonate, acidified to pH 1, and repartitioned back into ethyl acetate. The residues are then evaporated to dryness, redissolved in methanol: dichloromethane ( 20: 80; v: v), methylated with trimethylsilyl diazomethane, and cleaned up by silica gel solid phase extraction for analysis by GC/ MS. Triadimefon was used as an internal standard for KWG 1732 analysis. The reported LOQ was 0.05 ppm for field corn and wheat grain and 0.02 ppm for cottonseed.

The registrant provided method validation and concurrent method recovery data for the GC/ MS method from fortifications at the LOQ. These recovery data are presented in Table 1. These data indicate that the GC/ MS method is adequate for data collection purposes.

Table 1. Recoveries of triadimenol and its metabolites KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 from fortified samples of untreated field corn grain, cottonseed, and wheat grain. Triadimenol KWG 1342 KWG 1732 Commodity Fortification Level ( ppm) % Recovery a Fortification Level ( ppm) % Recovery a Fortification Level ( ppm) % Recovery a Field corn Grain 0.05 76 84 ( 4) 0.05 86,88; 134, 142 0.05 88 102 ( 3)

Cottonseed 0.02 95 100 ( 3) 0.02 75 80 ( 3) 0.02 75 120 ( 3) Wheat Grain 0.05 72 82 ( 3) 0.05 100 108 ( 3) 0.05 60, 62; 76 a Each value represents one sample unless otherwise indicated in parentheses; recovery values outside the acceptable 70 120% range are listed separately.

Storage Stability Data Samples of field corn grain, cottonseed, and wheat grain were placed in frozen storage ( temperature unspecified) within 4 hours of sample collection, and then shipped frozen to the analytical laboratory, where they were stored frozen (~ 20 C) until analysis. Subsamples of the unginned cottonseed were removed from the freezer at the field trial site after approximately 3 months of storage; these subsamples were ginned, frozen, and then shipped to the analytical laboratory. Analyses were completed 82 96 days following collection for field corn grain samples, 201 236 days following collection for cottonseed samples, and 44 51 days following collection for wheat grain samples. 5 Storage stability data for triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 have been submitted by Bayer Corporation to satisfy reregistration data requirements for triadimefon. These data indicate that residues of triadimenol and KWG 1342 are stable in wheat grain for up to 2 years of at  20 C ( S. Hummel; D168542 and D178884; 12/ 22/ 92) and residues of KWG 1732 are stable in wheat grain for up to 2.5 years at  20 ° C ( J. Punzi; D222403, D227497, and D227543; 7/ 13/ 2000). These data are adequate to support the storage intervals and conditions of the samples from the submitted field corn grain, cottonseed, and wheat grain studies.

Magnitude of the Residue in Processed Food/ Feed Field Corn Established tolerances: No tolerance has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in any field corn processed commodity. A tolerance of 0.05 ppm has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in/ on field corn grain [ § 180.450( a)].

Use directions: The 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 91) is registered for use on field corn as a seed treatment at 0.062 lb ai ( 1.0 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed. Application is to be made by mixing the dosage in 16 fluid oz of water per 100 lb of seed. The use of treated seed for feed, food or oil purposes is prohibited. A 45 day PHI has been established for forage.

Discussion of data: Gustafson has submitted data ( 1998; MRID 44519801) depicting the potential for concentration of triadimenol residues of concern in field corn processed commodities. Field corn seed was treated with the 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation at 0.313 lb ai ( 5.0 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed ( 5x the maximum application rate) prior to planting. The treated seed was planted in IA six days after treatment. One sample of field corn grain grown from untreated seed and two samples of field corn grain grown from treated seed were collected at maturity, 177 days after planting. The field corn grain samples were placed in frozen storage within 2 hours of collection, and then shipped frozen to the analytical laboratory ( ABC Laboratories), where they were stored frozen until analysis.

Field corn grain samples were analyzed for residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732. Residues were below the LOQ (< 0.05 ppm) for each analyte in/ on one sample of untreated field corn grain and two samples of treated field corn grain. Because no quantifiable residues were observed in/ on corn grain following treatment at 5x the maximum application rate, a processing study was not conducted.

Study summary: The submitted data are adequate to fulfill the requirements for a field corn grain processing study. As triadimenol residues of concern were < LOQ in/ on corn grain grown from seed treated at 5x the maximum application rate, a corn grain processing study and tolerances for field corn processed commodities are not required.

Cottonseed Established tolerances: No tolerance has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in any cottonseed processed commodity. A tolerance of 0.02 ppm has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in/ on cottonseed [ § 180.450( a)].

Use directions: The 0.43 lb/ gal EC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 80) is registered for use on cotton as a seed treatment at 0.040 lb ai ( 0.6 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed. The use of treated seed for feed, food or oil purposes is prohibited. 6 The 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 91) is registered for use on cotton as a seed treatment at 0.062 lb ai ( 1.0 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed. Application is to be made by mixing the dosage in 16 fluid oz of water per 100 lb of seed. The use of treated seed for feed, food or oil purposes is prohibited.

Discussion of data: Gustafson has submitted data ( 1998; MRID 44519802) depicting the potential for concentration of triadimenol residues of concern in cottonseed processed commodities. Cotton seed was treated with the 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation at 0.313 lb ai ( 5.0 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed ( 5x the maximum application rate) prior to planting. The treated seed was planted in MS 13 days after treatment. One sample of cottonseed grown from untreated seed and two samples of cottonseed grown from treated seed were collected at maturity, 148 days after planting. The samples were placed in frozen storage within 1 hour of collection. Subsamples of the unginned cottonseed were removed from the freezer after approximately 3 months of storage; these subsamples were ginned, frozen, and then shipped to the analytical laboratory ( ABC Laboratories), where they were stored frozen until analysis.

Ginned cottonseed samples were analyzed for residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732. Residues were below the LOQ (< 0.02 ppm) for each analyte in/ on one sample of untreated cottonseed and two samples of treated cottonseed. Because no quantifiable residues were observed following treatment at 5x the maximum application rate, a processing study was not conducted.

Study summary: The submitted data are adequate to fulfill the requirement for a cottonseed processing study. As triadimenol residues of concern were each below the LOQ ( 0.02 ppm) in cottonseed grown from seed treated at 5x the maximum application rate, a cottonseed processing study and tolerances for cotton processed commodities are not required.

Wheat Established tolerances: No tolerance has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in any wheat processed commodity. A tolerance of 0.05 ppm has been established for triadimenol residues of concern in/ on wheat grain [ § 180.450( a)].

Use directions: The 0.43 bl/ gal EC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 80), 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 91), 2.6 lb/ gal FlC formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 3125 424), and 6.25% D formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 7501 150) are registered for use on wheat as a seed treatment at 0.03 lb ai ( 0.5 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed. Application is to be made by mixing the dosage in 16 fluid oz of water per 100 lb of seed ( FlC formulations only). The use of treated seed for feed, food or oil purposes is prohibited. A 40 day PHI has been established for forage. We note that the registrant has requested cancellation of the 6.25% D formulation ( 65 FR 24477, 4/ 26/ 00).

Discussion of data: Gustafson has submitted data ( 1998; MRID 44519803) depicting the potential for concentration of triadimenol residues of concern in wheat processed commodities. Wheat seed was treated with the 2.65 lb/ gal FlC formulation at 0.16 lb ai ( 2.5 oz ai) per 100 lb of seed ( 5x the maximum application rate) prior to planting. The treated seed was planted in TX 18 days after treatment. The registrant noted that the treated seed did not grow as well as the untreated seed, and that the treated plot suffered ~ 40 50% loss due to winter freezing conditions. One sample of wheat grain grown from untreated seed and two samples of wheat grain grown from treated seed were collected at maturity, 308 days after planting. The wheat grain samples were placed in frozen storage within 4 hours of collection, 7 and then shipped frozen to the analytical laboratory ( ABC Laboratories), where they were stored frozen until analysis.

Wheat grain samples were analyzed for residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732. Residues were below the LOQ (< 0.05 ppm) for each analyte in/ on one sample of untreated wheat grain. Residues of triadimenol and KWG 1342 were below the LOQ in/ on two samples of treated wheat grain. Detectable residues of KWG 1732 were observed in the wheat grain samples at 0.11 ppm and 0.23 ppm.

The registrant did not process seed from the above 5x field trial; instead, Gustafson cited a wheat processing study submitted by Bayer Corporation to fulfill reregistration requirements for triadimefon ( 1996; MRID 44029301). In that study, mature wheat grain was harvested 35 days following the last of two foliar broadcast applications of a 50% WP triadimefon formulation ( EPA Reg. No. 3125 340) at 0.9 lb ai/ A/ application ( ca. 4x the maximum seasonal use rate for triadimefon). At the processing facility ( Texas A& M University Food Protein and Development Center, Bryan, TX), aspirated grain fractions were collected ( data for aspirated grain fractions are not presented here) and wheat grain samples were processed into bran, wheat germ, flour, middlings, and shorts, using a small scale processing procedure which simulated normal commercial processing conditions. The residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 found in wheat grain and its processed commodities are presented in the Table 2. These data indicate that the combined residues of triadimenol, KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 concentrate by 2.1x in wheat bran but do not concentrate in wheat flour, middlings, shorts, or germ.

Table 2. Residues of triadimenol, KWG KWG 1342, and KWG 1732 in the processed commodities of wheat grain harvested at maturity ( 35 days) following the last of two foliar applications of triadimefon at 4x the maximum seasonal triadimefon rate ( MRID 44029301).

Grain Bran Flour Middlings Shorts Germ a Each residue value represents a single sample.

However, these data cannot be translated to triadimenol because of differences in the use patterns of the two compounds. The use of triadimefon on wheat, which Bayer is no longer supporting, involves late season foliar applications that are more likely to result in surface residues in/ on wheat grain, as suggested by the concentration of residues in bran in the above study. However, the use of triadimenol as a seed treatment is unlikely to result in the concentration of residues in the outer seed coat. To assess the potential for the concentration of triadimenol residues in wheat grain, the registrant should conduct a processing study using the available wheat grain grown from the 5x treated seeds.

Study summary: The available wheat grain data do not fulfill the requirement for a wheat grain processing study. Residues of triadimenol and KWG 1342 were each < LOQ (< 0.05 ppm) and residues of KWG 1732 were 0.11 ppm and 0.23 ppm in/ on two samples of wheat 8 grain grown from seed treated with triadimenol ( FlC) at 5x the maximum rate. However, the treated grain was not processed. Instead, the registrant proposed translating data from a triadimefon wheat grain processing study; however, these data cannot be translated to triadimenol due to differences in the use patterns ( seed treatment vs. late season foliar sprays) that are likely to impact the potential concentration of residues. The registrant should conduct a processing study using the available wheat grain grown from the seeds treated with triadimenol at 5x.

AGENCY MEMORANDA CITED IN THIS REVIEW DP Barcodes: D168542 and D178884 Subject: Triadimefon ( 109901): Storage Stability Data, PAM Multiresidue Methods, Product Chemistry Data. CBRS Nos. 8566 and 9929. From: S. Hummel To M. Wilhite/ B. Sidwell Dated: 12/ 22/ 92 MRIDs: 41976601, 41976602, and 42307801 42307803 DP Barcodes: D222403, D227497, and D227543 Subject: Triadimefon. Independent Laboratory Validation, Radiovalidation Data, and Storage Stability Data. From: J. Punzi To: B. Chambliss Dated: 7/ 13/ 2000 MRIDs: 43870101, 44038901, 44041001, and 44041002 MASTER RECORD IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS The citations for the MRID documents referred to in this review are presented below.

44029301 Grace, T. ( 1996) BAYLETON 50WP  Magnitude of the Residue in Wheat Processed Products: Lab Project Number: BL19WH02: 107130: PR95322. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp.; Texas A& M University; and Maxim Technologies, Inc. 2508 p.

44519801 Shen, S. ( 1998) Determination of Residues of Baytan 30 in Processed Field Corn Fractions: Lab Project Number: 96 003: 963HI: 43514. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. and Gustafson Research and Development Center. 458 p.

44519802 Shen, S. ( 1998) Determination of Residues of Baytan 30 in Processed Cotton Fractions: Lab Project Number: 96 001: 963HG: 43516. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. and Gustafson Research and Development Center. 452 p.

44519803 Shen, S. ( 1998) Determination of Residues of Baytan 30 in Processed Wheat Fractions: Lab Project Number: 96 002: 963HH: 43513. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. and Gustafson Research and Development Center. 462 p.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58178-58180]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0347]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption from the
commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements to Navistar, Inc.
(Navistar) for a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver, Mr. Anders
Bj[ouml]rkman, employed as an engineer by Navistar's business partner
Scania AB (Scania). Navistar and Scania are subsidiaries of Germany's
TRATON SE. Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman holds a valid Swedish commercial license
and wants to test drive Navistar CMVs on U.S. roads to better
understand product requirements in ``real world'' environments and
verify

results. FMCSA reviewed Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman's commercial license records
provided by Navistar, and believes the requirements for a Swedish
commercial license, and the terms and conditions set forth below,
including a Navistar-administered drug and alcohol testing program,
will ensure that his operation under this exemption will likely achieve
a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective September 23, 2022 and expires
September 23, 2027.

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email [email protected].
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number, ``FMCSA-2018-0347'' in the keyword box and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2018-0347'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and choose
the document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and the public comments
submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The
Agency's decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the
exemption (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the
exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Current Regulatory Requirements

    Under 49 CFR 383.23, no person shall operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) without first having taken and passed the knowledge and
driving skills tests for a commercial learner's permit or CDL that meet
the Federal standards in subparts F, G, and H of part 383 for the CMV
that person operates or expects to operate. Such drivers are also
subject to the controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements
of 49 CFR part 382.

IV. Applicant's Request

    Navistar has applied for an exemption for Anders Bj[ouml]rkman from
49 CFR 383.23 because he is unable to obtain a CDL due to his lack of
residency in the United States. Navistar states that Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman
is employed as an expert engineer by Navistar's business partner Scania
in Sweden. Navistar and Scania are both subsidiaries of Germany's
TRATON SE.
    Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman holds a valid Swedish commercial license. The
exemption would allow him to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate
commerce to support Navistar field tests designed to meet future
vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote
technological advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions
reductions. According to Navistar, the driving will consist of no more
than 250 miles per day, for a total of 500 miles during a two-day
period on a quarterly basis.

V. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    According to Navistar, the requirements for a Swedish commercial
license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if
this driver had a CDL issued by one of the States. Navistar explained
that Anders Bj[ouml]rkman is familiar with the operation of CMVs
worldwide and would be accompanied at all times by a driver who holds a
State-issued CDL and is familiar with the routes to be traveled. In
addition, Navistar provided a statement of driving history for Mr.
Bj[ouml]rkman.

VI. Public Comments

    On April 7, 2022, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comments (87 FR 20499). The Agency received no
comments.

VII. FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has determined that the process for obtaining a Swedish
commercial license is comparable to the process for obtaining a State-
issued CDL and therefore adequately ensures that this driver can safely
operate a CMV in the United States. FMCSA reviewed documents submitted
with the application including Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman's Swedish commercial
license, his driving record, a CMV experience statement, and accident
statement. In 2019, the Agency granted similar exemptions to Navistar
drivers on three occasions [April 15, 2019 (84 FR 15283); November 21,
2019 (84 FR 64400); December 27, 2019 (84 FR 71525)]. Furthermore, the
Agency has granted German drivers working for Daimler similar
exemptions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMCSA granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions on May 25,
2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80
FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); July 12, 2016 (81 FR
45217); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496); August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39151),
September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45742) and April 27, 2022 (87 FR 25083).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this exemption, Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman would not be subject to the
drug and alcohol testing requirements, set forth in 49 CFR part 382,
which apply only to drivers who are subject to the CDL requirements in
49 CFR part 383, the Canadian National Safety Code, or the Licencia
Federal de Conductor (Mexico), and to their employers (49 CFR
382.103(a)). Therefore, to ensure a likely equivalent level of safety,
the terms and conditions of this exemption

require that Navistar implement a corporate drug and alcohol testing
program substantially equivalent to the testing requirements in part
382.
    Based on the information provided by Navistar, as described in
section IV, including the driver's experience and safety record, FMCSA
concludes that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in section VIII, would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1).

VIII. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    This exemption applies only to Navistar driver Anders
Bj[ouml]rkman. This driver is granted an exemption from the CDL
requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow him to drive CMVs in the United
States without a State-issued CDL. Consequently, this driver is not
subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 382. When operating under
this exemption, Navistar and Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman are subject to the
following terms and conditions:
    (1) The driver and Navistar must comply with all other applicable
provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49
CFR parts 350-399);
    (2) The driver must be in possession of the exemption document and
a valid Swedish commercial license;
    (3) The driver must be employed by and operate the CMV within the
scope of his duties for Navistar or its partner Scania;
    (4) At all times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the
driver must be accompanied by a holder of a State-issued CDL who is
familiar with the routes traveled;
    (5) Navistar must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days of
any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman;
and
    (6) Navistar must notify FMCSA in writing if Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman is
convicted of a disqualifying offense under Sec.  383.51 or Sec.  391.15
of the FMCSRs; and
    (7) Navistar must implement a drug and alcohol testing program
substantially equivalent to the applicable requirements in 49 CFR part
382, subparts A-F, and require that Mr. Bj[ouml]rkman be subject to
those requirements.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate
commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption
with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States
may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to
operations in intrastate commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    Under the exemption, Navistar must notify FMCSA within 5 business
days of any crash (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving Anders
Bj[ouml]rkman while operating a CMV under the terms of this exemption.
The notification about crashes must include the following information:
    a. Identifier of the Exemption: ``Navistar--Bj[ouml]rkman;''
    b. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number;
    c. Date of the crash;
    d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the crash scene;
    e. Driver's name and license number;
    f. Co-driver's name (if any) and license number;
    g. Vehicle number and State license number;
    h. Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
    i. Number of fatalities;
    j. The police-reported cause of the crash, if provided by the
enforcement agency;
    k. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations; and
    l. The total on-duty time accumulated during the 7 consecutive days
prior to the date of the crash, and the total on-duty time and driving
time in the work shift prior to the crash.

IX. Termination

    FMCSA has no reason to believe the motor carrier and driver covered
by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety
records. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps
necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the
exemption. FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to
comply with its terms and conditions.

Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-20642 Filed 9-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40398-40399]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16653]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67336; File No. SR-FICC-2012-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Ability of the
Government Securities Division To Use Implied Volatility Indicators as
Part of the Volatility Model in Its Clearing Fund Formula

July 2, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On May 15, 2012, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2012-04 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on May 31, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposal. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67059 (May 24, 2012),
77 FR 32153 (May 31, 2012). In its filing with the Commission, FICC
included a detailed statement regarding the purposes of and basis
for the proposed rule change. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    This proposed rule change relates to the use of implied volatility
indicators in the clearing fund formula of FICC's Government Securities
Division (``GSD''). As discussed in FICC's filing with the Commission,
a primary objective of GSD's clearing fund (``Clearing Fund'') \4\ is
to have on deposit from each applicable Member \5\ assets sufficient to
satisfy losses that may otherwise be incurred by GSD as the result of
the default of the Member and the resultant close out of that Member's
unsettled positions under GSD's trade guaranty. The required Clearing
Fund deposit of each Member is calculated twice daily \6\ pursuant to a
formula set forth in Section 1b of GSD Rule 4 designed to provide
sufficient funds to cover this risk of loss. The Clearing Fund formula
accounts for a variety of risk factors through the application of a
number of components, each described in Section 1b of GSD Rule 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions provides that ``[t]he term
`Clearing Fund' means the Clearing Fund established by the
Corporation pursuant to these Rules, which shall be comprised of the
aggregate of all Required Fund Deposits and all other deposits,
including Cross-Guaranty Repayment Deposits, to the Clearing Fund.''
    \5\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions provides that ``[t]he term
`Member' means a Comparison-Only Member or a Netting Member. The
term `Member' shall include a Sponsoring Member in its capacity as a
Sponsoring Member and a Sponsored Member, each to the extent
specific in Rule 3A.''
    \6\ A Member's Clearing Fund deposit may also be recalculated on
an intraday basis as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The volatility component of the Clearing Fund formula is designed
to calculate the amount of money that may be lost on a portfolio over a
given period of time assumed necessary to liquidate the portfolio
within a given level of confidence. Pursuant to Section 1b of Rule 4,
GSD may calculate the volatility component on a value at risk charge
(``VaR Charge'') ``utilizing such assumptions (including confidence
levels) and based on such historical data as [GSD] deems reasonable,
and shall cover such range of historical volatility as [GSD] from time
to time deems appropriate.'' \7\ FICC believes that Section 1b of Rule
4 therefore provides GSD with the flexibility to adjust the calculation
of the volatility component of its Clearing Fund formula as needed to
react to changes in market conditions, including through the use of
such assumptions and data as it deems appropriate within its VaR
Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FICC GSD Rule 1--Definitions defining the term VaR Charge in
relevant part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The historical simulation model currently used to calculate the VaR
Charge in GSD's Clearing Fund formula is driven by historical data
observed in the fixed-income market. While the model weighs the data it
uses in favor of more recent observations, it is still limited in its
ability to quickly reflect sudden changes in market volatility, which
may lead to the collection of insufficient margin during periods of
sudden market volatility.
    GSD's Clearing Fund formula, in particular the VaR Charge, provides
GSD with the discretion to adjust the model assumptions and data as
necessary to react to these market conditions. To enhance the model's
performance, additional information and other observable market data,
including data derived from financial products with future maturity
dates, thus may be incorporated into or utilized by the volatility
model, including data observed in implied volatility indicators that
are derived from historical prices of financial products that have
maturity dates in the future (such as the 1-year option on the 10-year
swap rate). For the avoidance of doubt, this proposed rule change

amends the definition of VaR Charge to make clear that the assumptions
and data utilized in calculating the VaR Charge may be based on
observable market data, which may include implied market volatility
indicators that are derived from historical prices of financial
products that have maturity dates in the future, so as to enhance the
performance of the model and enable GSD to more effectively achieve and
maintain the confidence level required by regulatory and industry
standards.\8\ Incorporation of such information into volatility
calculations is a generally accepted practice for portfolio volatility
models, currently used by other clearing agencies, and accordingly
consistent with current rules of FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed change to the definition of VaR
Charge can be found in Exhibit 5 to proposed rule change SR-FICC-
2012-04 at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2012/ficc/SR-FICC-2012-04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change clarifies that GSD at its discretion may
utilize implied volatility indicators that are derived from historical
prices of financial products that have maturity dates in the future
among the assumptions and other observable market data as part of its
volatility model. The proposal also clarifies the ability of GSD to
adjust its volatility calculations as needed to improve the performance
of the model in periods of market volatility. It therefore assists GSD
to maintain the requisite confidence level notwithstanding those market
conditions.
    As an example of one such adjustment to the volatility model, GSD
will apply a multiplier (``Augmented Volatility Adjustment
Multiplier'') to the VaR Charge. The Augmented Volatility Adjustment
Multiplier is based on the levels of change in current and implied
volatility measures. An advantage of this approach is that as
volatility subsides in the market so will the effect of the Augmented
Volatility Adjustment Multiplier on Members' margin requirements. The
volatility measures will be determined by reference to the implied
volatility of the 1-year option on the 10-year USD LIBOR swap rate and
the historical volatility of the 10-year USD LIBOR swap rate. It is
expected that GSD will provide its Members with advance notice of the
Augmented Volatility Adjustment Multiplier that may be applied to the
Members' VaR Charge on a weekly basis.\9\ By using a single fixed
multiplier based on observable market data, Members will be able to
predict the impact on their margin requirement. Although the Augmented
Volatility Adjustment Multiplier will be automatically applied to each
Member's VaR Charge, GSD may in its sole discretion determine to waive
the application of the Augmented Volatility Adjustment Multiplier to
all of its Members in circumstances it deems warrant such a waiver.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FICC GSD will reserve the right to recalculate the
multiplier more frequently than weekly in volatile market
conditions.
    \10\ FICC GSD plans to apply a cap to the Augmented Volatility
Adjustment Multiplier and initially the cap will be set at 2. FICC
GSD will reserve the right to change the cap in its sole discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC intends that this proposed rule change would be effective on a
date no less than ten business days following an Important Notice to
Members by FICC announcing any approval by the Commission.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \11\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act \12\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing
agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds that are in the custody or control of such
clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The proposed rule
change would clarify that FICC GSD's rules permit it to use implied
volatility indicators that are derived from historical prices of
financial products that have maturity dates in the future as part of
the volatility model in its Clearing Fund formula. The use of these
indicators should assist GSD in its efforts to ensure the efficacy of
its volatility margin methodology in highly volatile markets and,
thereby, reduce GSD's and its Members' exposure to the losses of a
defaulting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act, as well
as with the rules and regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \13\ of the
Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2012-04) be, and
hereby is, approved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16653 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87-88]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently

received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.               File date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    CP18-46-000................        12-11-19  Industrial Energy
                                                  Consumers of America.
Exempt:
    1. CP19-494-000............       12-3-2019  FERC Staff.\1\
    2. CP16-9-000..............      12-11-2019  U.S. Congress.\2\
    3. P-2232-759..............      12-11-2019  U.S. Congressman Mark
                                                  R. Meadows.
    4. CP16-9-000..............      12-16-2019  U.S. Congressman Joseph
                                                  P. Kennedy, III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Telephone Memorandum on December 3, 2019 with Nicholas Haus (FERC
  third party contractor with Merjent, Inc.) and Allen Swab Officer of
  Town of Hegins Zoning.
\2\ U.S. Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, III and U.S. Congressman Stephen
  F. Lynch.

    Dated: December 26, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28299 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P