[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30245-30249]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-6-000]

Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific
Requirements of the Disturbance Control Performance Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control
Performance, Requirements R4 and R5, submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. Specifically,
the interpretation addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve
Sharing Groups are subject to enforcement actions for failing to
restore Area Control Error within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery
Period for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single
Contingency. The Commission proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation because it changes a requirement of the Reliability
Standard, thereby exceeding the permissible scope for interpretations.

DATES: Comments are due July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any
of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Issued May 16, 2013)

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation of Reliability Standard
BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control Performance, Requirements R4 and R5
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). Specifically, the interpretation
addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are
subject to compliance enforcement actions for failing to restore Area
Control Error (ACE) within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period
for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single
Contingency (MSSC). For the reasons explained below, the Commission
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation because it changes the
requirements of the Reliability Standard, thereby exceeding the
permissible scope for interpretations. The Commission seeks comments on
its proposal.

I. Background

A. Section 215 of the FPA and Standards Development Process

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public

interest.\1\ Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced
by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\2\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission
established a process to select and certify an ERO,\3\ and subsequently
certified NERC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \2\ Id. 824o(e)(3).
    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In March 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, evaluating
107 Reliability Standards, including the Disturbance Control
Performance (BAL-002-0) Reliability Standard.\5\ In Order No. 693, the
Commission approved BAL-002-0. In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed the ERO to develop a
modification to BAL-002-0 through the Reliability Standards development
process that: (1) Includes a Requirement that explicitly provides that
Demand Side Management may be used as a resource for contingency
reserves; (2) develops a continent-wide contingency reserve policy; and
(3) refers to the ERO rather than the NERC Operating Committee in
Requirements R4.2 and R6.2.\6\ On January 10, 2011, the Commission
approved BAL-002-1 via letter order,\7\ which addressed the third
directive described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 316, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 356.
    \7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,015
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that all persons ``directly
and materially affected'' by Bulk-Power System reliability may request
an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.\8\ In response, the ERO
will assemble a team with relevant expertise to address the requested
interpretation and also form a ballot pool. NERC's Rules of Procedure
provide that, within 45 days, the team will draft an interpretation of
the Reliability Standard and submit it to the ballot pool. If approved
by the ballot pool and subsequently by the NERC Board of Trustees
(Board), the interpretation is appended to the Reliability Standard and
filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Standard Processes
Manual, at 27-29. See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 132
FERC ] 61,200 (2010) (approving revisions to Standards Process
Manual). On February 28, 2013, in pending Docket No. RR13-2-000,
NERC submitted proposed revisions to the Standards Process Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Further, NERC's Rules of Procedure state that ``[a] valid
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or more
Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement and does not
explain how to comply with any Requirement.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1

    6. The stated purpose of BAL-002-1 is to ``ensure the Balancing
Authority is able to utilize its Contingency Reserve to balance
resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency within
defined limits following a Reportable Disturbance.'' The NERC Glossary
of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary) defines Reportable
Disturbance as ``[A]ny event that causes an ACE change greater than or
equal to 80% of a Balancing Authority's or Reserve Sharing Group's most
severe contingency.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NERC Glossary at 56. NERC defines Area Control Error or
``ACE'' as ``the instantaneous difference between net actual and
scheduled interchange, taking into account the effects of Frequency
Bias including correction for meter error.'' Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 has six Requirements. Most
relevant to the proposed interpretation, Requirements R3 and R4
provide:

    R3. Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall
activate sufficient Contingency Reserve to comply with the DCS.
    R3.1. As a minimum, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group shall carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the
most severe single contingency. All Balancing Authorities and
Reserve Sharing Groups shall review, no less frequently than
annually, their probable contingencies to determine their
prospective most severe single contingencies.
    R4. A Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall meet
the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances. The Disturbance Recovery
Criterion is:
    R4.1. A Balancing Authority shall return its ACE to zero if its
ACE just prior to the Reportable Disturbance was positive or equal
to zero. For negative initial ACE values just prior to the
Disturbance, the Balancing Authority shall return ACE to its pre-
Disturbance value.
    R4.2. The default Disturbance Recovery Period is 15 minutes
after the start of a Reportable Disturbance.

    Also relevant to the proceeding is the Additional Compliance
Information language in Part D of BAL-002-1, which includes:

    Reportable Disturbances--Reportable Disturbances are
contingencies that are greater than or equal to 80% of the most
severe single Contingency . . .
    Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.

II. NERC's Proposed Interpretation of BAL-002-1 (R4 and R5)

    8. On February 12, 2013, NERC filed a petition (Petition) seeking
approval of the proposed interpretation of BAL-002-1, developed in
response to an interpretation request submitted on September 2, 2009 by
the Northwest Power Pool Reserve Sharing Group (NWPP). NERC explains
that NWPP requested clarification on the following matters:

    (1) although a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single
Contingency must be reported by the Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group (as applicable), is the Disturbance excluded from
compliance evaluation for the applicable Balancing Authority or
Reserve Sharing Group;
    (2) with respect to either simultaneous Contingencies or non-
simultaneous multiple Contingencies affecting a Reserve Sharing
Group, the exclusion from compliance evaluation for Disturbances
exceeding the most severe single Contingency applies both when
    (a) all Contingencies occur within a single Balancing Authority
member of the Reserve Sharing Group, and
    (b) different Balancing Authorities within the Reserve Sharing
Group experience separate Contingencies that occur simultaneously,
or non-simultaneously but before the end of the Disturbance Recovery
Period following the first Reportable Disturbance; and
    (3) the meaning of the phrase ``excluded from compliance
evaluation'' as used in Section 1.4 (``Additional Compliance
Information'') of Part D of BAL-002-0 and for purposes of the
preceding statements is that, with respect to Disturbances that
exceed the most severe single Contingency for a Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group (as applicable), a violation of BAL-002-0
does not occur even if ACE is not recovered within the Disturbance
Recovery Period (15 minutes unless adjusted pursuant to BAL-002-0,
R4.2).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NERC Petition at 7.

    9. A proposed interpretation was first balloted in February 2010,
but failed to achieve a two-third approval from the ballot body.\12\
NERC staff determined

that any further interpretation could not be developed unless the team
could consider the measures and the additional compliance elements of
the standard.\13\ In January 2012 NERC staff told the NWPP their
interpretation request was ``ineligible'' under the existing rules for
developing interpretations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NERC Petition, Exh. C (Summary of the Interpretation
Development Proceedings and Record of Development of Proposed
Interpretation) at 1-2.
    \13\ Id. at 2. A November 2009 Resolution of the NERC Board that
pertained to interpretations included the following passage: ``[i]n
deciding whether or not to approve a proposed interpretation, the
board will use a standard of strict construction and not seek to
expand the reach of the standard to correct a perceived gap or
deficiency in the standard.''
    \14\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. ISO/RTO Council appealed this decision, challenging the BAL-
002-1 interpretation process. In a March 2012 letter responding to ISO/
RTO Council, NERC staff stated: ``Given the difficulty in interpreting
the existing language of the standard, NERC recommends to the [ISO/RTO
Council] and NWPP that they consider developing and submitting a
Standard Authorization Request (SAR) to the Standards Committee to
address their concern.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. At its May 2012 meeting, the NERC Board Standards Oversight and
Technology Committee (SOTC) concluded that ``strict construction for
the purposes of interpretation was never meant to limit the materials
considered in developing the interpretation solely to the contents of
the requirements in a standard, but can include any language in the
standard, including compliance related sections.'' \16\ The NERC
Standards Committee assembled another drafting team that developed a
proposed interpretation that received a 90.34 percent approval vote in
October 2012. On November 7, 2012, the NERC BOT adopted the proposed
interpretation of BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In its Petition, NERC states that, in response to NWPP's first
question, the proposed interpretation clarifies that Balancing
Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are not subject to the 15-minute
Disturbance Recovery Period for Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.
    13. With regard to the second question, NERC explained that the
proposed interpretation provides that:

    [t]he standard was written to provide pre-acknowledged RSG's the
same considerations as a single BA for purposes of exclusions from
DCS compliance evaluation . . . [T]his applies to both multiple
contingencies occurring within one minute or less of each other
being treated as a single Contingency or Contingencies that occur
after one minute of the start of a Reportable Disturbance but before
the end of the Disturbance Recovery Period.
    The standard, while recognizing dynamically allocated RSGs, does
NOT provide the members of dynamically allocated RSGs exclusions
from DCS compliance evaluation on an RSG basis. For members of
dynamically allocated RSGs, the exclusions are provided only on a
member BA by member BA basis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 14-15

    14. In response to NWPP's third question regarding the exclusion
language in the Additional Compliance Information provision of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standard, the drafting team responded:

    The Additional Compliance Information section clearly states:
``Simultaneous contingencies--Multiple contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the Most Severe Single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.''
    Although Requirement R3 does mandate that a BA or RSG activate
sufficient Contingency Reserves to comply with DCS for every
Reportable Disturbance, there is no requirement to comply with or
even report disturbances that are below the Reportable Disturbance
level. The averaging obligation does incent calculation and
reporting of such lesser events. If a Balancing Authority were to
experience a Disturbance five times greater than its most severe
single Contingency, it would be required to report this Disturbance,
but would not be required to recover ACE within 15 minutes following
a Disturbance of this magnitude.
    An excludable disturbance is a disturbance whose magnitude was
greater than the magnitude of the most severe single contingency.
Any other proposed interpretation would result in treating BAL-002-0
as if it required Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups
to recover ACE (to zero or pre-Disturbance levels, as applicable)
within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period without regard to
Disturbance magnitude. This is inconsistent with (a) the reserve
requirement specified in R3.1 of BAL-002-0, (b) the text of Section
1.4 of Part D of BAL-002-0, and (c) the documented history of the
development of BAL-002-0 . . .\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NERC Petition at 16.

    15. NERC contends that BAL-002-1 is intended to be read as ``an
integrated whole'' and therefore uses the phrase ``excluded from
compliance evaluation'' that appears in Part D, Section 1.5
(``Additional Compliance Information'') as support for concluding that
the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period contained in Requirement R4
of BAL-002-1 does not apply to Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NERC Petition at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. NERC asserts that ``the proposed interpretation is necessary to
prevent Registered Entities from shedding load to avoid possible
violations of BAL-002, a result that is inconsistent with reliability
principles.'' \20\ NERC further asserts that ``[i]f the Reliability
Standard is interpreted to require that ACE be returned to zero even
for a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single Contingency, a
Balancing Authority could be required to take drastic operational
actions, even when other measures of system reliability (voltage
stability, normal frequency, operation within system operating limits,
etc.) indicate otherwise.'' NERC adds that ``a lack of clarity on the
interpretation of [BAL-002] potentially has significant financial and
operational impacts on all Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing
Groups.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 3.
    \21\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. NERC asserts that the proposed interpretation ``neither expands
on any Requirement nor explains how to comply with a Requirement.''
\22\ NERC acknowledges that the proposed interpretation differs from
the PacifiCorp Stipulation and Consent Agreement, in which NERC staff
and Commission staff determined that PacifiCorp violated BAL-002-0
Requirement R4 by failing to restore its ACE within the 15-minute
Disturbance Recovery Period, despite a Disturbance exceeding
PacifiCorp's MSSC.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Petition at 11 (citing NERC Standards Process Manual at
27).
    \23\ NERC Petition at 16-17 (citing PacifiCorp, 137 FERC ]
61,176, at n.5 (2011) (PacifiCorp)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    18. We propose to remand NERC's interpretation of BAL-002-1 because
it fails to comport with the Commission-approved requirement that
interpretations can only clarify, not change, a Reliability
Standard.\24\ Rather, changes to a Reliability Standard must be
developed through NERC's standards development procedure as prescribed
in NERC's Rules of Procedure.\25\ As discussed below, NERC's proposed
interpretation changes Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 from its plain
meaning, and also effectively redefines the term Reportable Disturbance
as defined in the NERC Glossary and used in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 27 (``[a] valid
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or
more Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement . . .).
The Commission approved the NERC Standards Process Manual in North
American Electric Reliability Corp., 132 FERC ] 61,200.
    \25\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 12-14 (explaining the
Standards Authorization Request process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. NERC's proposal interprets the phrase ``excluded from
compliance

evaluation,'' the exclusion language in Part D (Additional Compliance
Information), Section 1.5 of BAL-002-1 as limiting the obligation to
restore ACE set forth in Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1. As a result,
while Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 provides that a Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group ``shall meet the Disturbance Recovery
Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery Period [i.e., 15 minutes] for
100 percent of Reportable Disturbances,'' the NERC interpretation
limits Requirement R4 as applicable to only some Reportable
Disturbances.
    20. Stated differently, while the term ``Reportable Disturbance''
is defined by NERC as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to
80% of the most severe single contingency,'' the NERC interpretation
changes the term to mean contingencies that are greater than or equal
to 80 percent of the most severe single contingency but no greater than
100 percent of the most severe single contingency.\26\ In sum, the
proposed interpretation would relieve a Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group from having to restore ACE within 15 minutes of
Disturbances that are greater than 100 percent of the most single
severe Contingency, notwithstanding that BAL-002-1 Requirement R4
requires that: ``[A] Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall
meet the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances.'' Thus, NERC's proposal
goes beyond interpreting and, instead, changes a requirement of the
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Section D. Compliance, 1.5
(Additional Compliance Information) defines ``Reportable
Disturbance'' as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to
80% of the most severe single contingency.'' The definition of
``Reportable Disturbance'' in the NERC Glossary is ``[A]ny event
that causes an ACE change greater than or equal to 80% of a
Balancing Authority's or reserve sharing group's most severe
contingency.'' NERC's proposed interpretation is incompatible with
both definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. As mentioned above, NERC's proposed interpretation focuses on
the following provision in Part D, Section 1.5 (``Additional Compliance
Information'') of BAL-002-1:

    Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.

    NERC's proposal, however, is not adequately supported. NERC
interprets the exclusion language in the Additional Compliance
Information section as relieving Balancing Authorities or Reserve
Sharing Groups from having to comply with the ACE restoration
obligation in Requirement R4 for certain Disturbances. However, this
understanding is not supported by Requirement R4 or the Additional
Compliance Information section. Furthermore, NERC does not explain how
the proposed interpretation naturally flows from the existing
provision.
    22. A more natural reading of the standard is that the exclusion
language in the Additional Compliance Information section applies to
the Levels of Non-Compliance section contained in BAL-002-1, Part D,
Section 2, which provides that:

    Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group not meeting
the DCS during a calendar quarter shall increase its Contingency
Reserve obligation for the calendar quarter[hellip]following the
evaluation by the NERC or Compliance Monitor[hellip] The increase
shall be directly proportional to the non-compliance with the DCS in
the preceding quarter. This adjustment [hellip] is an additional
percentage of reserve needed beyond the most severe single
Contingency.''

    This language indicates that each Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group is subject to a compliance evaluation conducted by ``the
NERC or Compliance Monitor'' to determine whether it has complied with
the Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) and, if the Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group has not complied, make a temporary upward
adjustment to its Contingency Reserve. The exclusion language in the
Additional Compliance Information section provides that, for multiple
contingency Disturbances, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group must report the event, but may exclude it from the evaluation of
whether an upward adjustment in Contingency Reserves is warranted. NERC
does not explain why the exclusion language in the Additional
Compliance Information section applies to the ACE restoration
obligation in Requirement R4 rather than the reserve obligation review
process described in the Levels of Non-Compliance section of BAL-002-1.
Thus, while NERC advocates reading the Reliability Standard as ``an
integrated whole,''\27\ NERC's interpretation fails to address other
relevant language in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NERC Petition at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Accordingly, we propose to remand NERC's proposed
interpretation as an impermissible change to BAL-002-1 outside the
formal standards development process.\28\ The Petition goes beyond a
clarification by redefining key terms that would change the plain
language of a requirement. The Commission seeks comments on its
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Our proposal is based on the current wording of BAL-002-1
and does not prejudge the merits of any formal proposal by NERC to
replace to or change the wording of BAL-002-1. To the extent NERC
and its stakeholders have concerns with the requirements of BAL-002-
1, they may seek to address these concerns through the standards
development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Information Collection Statement

    24. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\29\ The information contained here
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \30\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in letter
order RD10-15, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the
current rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking proposes to remand the
Interpretation of BAL-002-1. Accordingly, the proposed Commission
action would not affect the information reporting burden.

V. Environmental Analysis

    26. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\31\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\32\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \32\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \33\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's Office of Size Standards develops the numerical
definition of a small business.\34\ For electric utilities, a firm is
small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the
transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did
not exceed four million megawatt hours. The Commission does not expect
the proposed remand discussed herein to materially change the cost for
small entities to comply with BAL-002-1. Therefore, the Commission
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \34\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comment Procedures

    28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due July 8, 2013. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM13-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

    32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    33. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12131 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 72879]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28987]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017; FRL-9902-63]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of September 20,
2013, concerning the product cancellation of several pesticide
products, which were previously published in the Federal Register of
September 18, 2013 and are subject to the provisions set forth in that
notice. This document corrects the inclusion of these referenced
registrations for product cancellation in the September 20, 2013
cancellation order notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the September 20, 2013 cancellation order
notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1017, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What does this correction do?

    EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of September 20, 2013
(78 FR 57850) (FRL-9396-3), concerning the product cancellation of
several pesticide products, including the following McLaughlin Gormley
King Co.'s product registrations: D-trans Allethrin 90% Concentrate
(EPA Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>0), D-trans Intermediate 1868 (EPA Reg. No.
001021-01128), Evercide Intermediate 2416 (EPA Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>0),
Evercide Intermediate 2491 (EPA Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>5), Evercide
Residual Pressurized Spray 2523 (EPA Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>4), and
Evercide Residual Pressurized Spray 2581 (EPA Reg. No.<PHONE_NUMBER>7).
This document corrects the inclusion of these referenced registrations
for product cancellation in the September 20, 2013 cancellation order
notice.
    These products were previously published in the Federal Register of
September 18, 2013, under FR Doc. 2013-22718 (78 FR 57388) (FRL-9395-2)
and are subject to the provisions set forth in that notice.
    FR Doc. 2013-22847 published in the Federal Register of September
20, 2013 (78 FR 57850) (FRL-9396-3) is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 57850, Table 1, first column (EPA Registration No.),
remove the entries:<PHONE_NUMBER>0,<PHONE_NUMBER>8,<PHONE_NUMBER>0, 001021-
01575,<PHONE_NUMBER>4, and<PHONE_NUMBER>7.
    2. On page 57851, Table 2, first column (EPA Company No.), remove
the entry: 1021.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 22, 2013.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-28987 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41446-41451]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18447]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81484; File No. SR-IEX-2017-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Transaction Fees Pursuant to Rule 15.110

August 25, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on August 11, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to increase the fees assessed under
specified circumstances for execution of orders that take liquidity
during periods when the IEX System has determined that a ``crumbling
quote'' exists with respect to the Protected National Best Bid
(``NBB'') or Protected National Best Offer (``NBO'') for such
security.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See, Rule 600(b)(42) under Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statement may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule, pursuant to IEX
Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to increase the fees assessed under specified
circumstances for execution of orders that take liquidity during
periods when the IEX System has determined that a ``crumbling quote''
exists with respect to the Protected NBB or Protected NBO for such
security.
    Pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(g), in determining whether quote
instability or a crumbling quote exists, the Exchange utilizes real
time relative quoting activity of certain Protected Quotations \7\ and
a proprietary mathematical calculation (the ``quote instability
calculation'') to assess the probability of an imminent change to the
current Protected NBB to a lower price or Protected NBO to a higher
price for a particular security (``quote instability factor''). When
the quoting activity meets predefined criteria and the quote
instability factor calculated is greater than the Exchange's defined
quote instability threshold, the System treats the quote as unstable
and the crumbling quote indicator (``CQI'') is on. During all other
times, the quote is considered stable, and the CQI is off. The System
independently assesses the stability of the Protected NBB and Protected
NBO for each security. When the System determines that a quote, either
the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO, is unstable, the determination
remains in effect at that price level for two milliseconds. The
Exchange proposes to increase fees assessed for execution of buy (sell)
orders that take liquidity at prices at or below (above) the NBO (NBB)
during the two milliseconds when the CQI is on. Therefore, buy orders
taking liquidity up to the Protected NBO and sell orders taking
liquidity down to the Protected NBB when the CQI is on will be subject
to the increased fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to Rule 11.190(g), the Protected Quotations of the
New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq Stock Market, NYSE Arca, Nasdaq BX,
Bats BZX Exchange, Bats BYX Exchange, Bats EDGX Exchange, and Bats
EDGA Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When CQI is on, Discretionary Peg orders \8\ and primary peg orders
\9\ do not exercise price discretion to meet the limit price of an
active (i.e., taking) order. Specifically, as set forth in Rule
11.190(b)(10), a Discretionary Peg order pegs to the less aggressive of
the primary quote (i.e., NBB for buy orders and NBO for sell orders) or
the order's limit price, if any, but, will exercise price discretion in
order to meet the limit price of an active order up to the less
aggressive of the Midpoint Price or the order's limit price, if any.
However, a Discretionary Peg order will not exercise such price
discretion when the CQI is on. Similarly, as set forth in Rule
11.190(b)(8), a primary peg order pegs to a price that is the less
aggressive of one (1) minimum price variant (``MPV'') less aggressive
than the primary quote (i.e., one MPV below (above) the NBB (NBO) for
buy (sell) orders) or the order's limit price, if any, but will
exercise price discretion in order to meet the limit price of an active
order up to the NBB (for buy orders) or down to the NBO (for sell
orders), except when the CQI is on or if the order is resting at its
limit price, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 11.190(b)(10).
    \9\ See Rule 11.190(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By not permitting resting Discretionary Peg orders and primary peg
orders to exercise price discretion during periods of quote
instability, the Exchange is designed to protect such orders from
unfavorable executions when its probabilistic model identifies that the
market appears to be moving adversely to them. As noted above, when the
IEX System determines that a quote (either the Protected NBB or the
Protected NBO) is unstable, the determination, and corresponding
limitation on Discretionary Peg and primary peg orders exercising price
discretion, remains in effect at that price level for only two
milliseconds. This limitation is designed to appropriately balance the
protective benefits to Discretionary Peg and primary peg orders with
the interest of avoiding potentially undue trading restrictions.
    Based on market data analysis during June 2017, the Exchange
identified that there are significant differences in short term
markouts \10\ (and pro forma profit and loss \11\) for resting and
taking orders between executions when the CQI is on and off, regardless
of whether the NBB (NBO) moves lower (higher) within two milliseconds
of the Exchange's determination of quote instability. Specifically,
when the CQI is on, liquidity removing orders that execute on IEX
(trading with a liquidity providing order resting on the order book,
including but not limited to Discretionary Peg and primary peg orders)
experience positive price markouts one second after the trade on a
share basis 75.6% of the time, compared to 23.9% of the time when the
CQI is off. Correspondingly, resting liquidity providing orders that
trade when the CQI is on experience negative price markouts one second
after the trade 75.6% of the time, compared to 23.9% of the time when
CQI is off. Similarly, 72.1% of all orders received when the CQI is on
(whether or not executed on IEX) arrive immediately prior to a
favorable price move (based on one second markouts), compared to 18.2%
of orders received when the CQI is off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term markouts refers to changes in the midpoint of the
NBBO measured from the perspective of either the liquidity providing
resting order or liquidity removing taking order over a specified
period of time following the time of execution.
    \11\ For purposes of this analysis, a pro forma profit or loss
is calculated as the difference between the midpoint of the NBBO at
the time of the execution compared to one second after.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the breakdown of orders entered and shares removed when
the CQI is on or off evidences that certain trading strategies appear
to involve entering liquidity taking orders targeting resting orders at
prices that are likely to move adversely from the perspective of the
resting order. Across all approximately 8,000 symbols available for
trading on IEX, the CQI is on only 1.24 seconds per symbol per day on
average (0.005% of the time during regular market hours),\12\ but 30.4%
of marketable orders \13\ are received during those time periods, which
indicates that certain types of trading strategies are seeking to
aggressively target liquidity providers during periods of quote
instability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On a volume weighted basis, the CQI is on for 6.50 seconds
per day per symbol, 0.03% of the time during regular market hours.
    \13\ An order is considered marketable for this analysis if it
was a market order or its limit price is at or more aggressive than
the far touch quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this data is particularly significant
and evidences that Members entering liquidity taking orders when the
CQI is on appear to be able to engage in a form of latency arbitrage by
leveraging fast proprietary market data feeds and connectivity along
with predictive strategies to chase short-term price momentum and
successfully target resting orders at unstable prices. IEX believes
that these types of trading strategies, with concentrated and
aggressive tactics during moments of quote instability, are detrimental
to the experience of other IEX participants. IEX further believes

that such trading strategies create disparate burdens on resting
orders, particularly those that are displayed and therefore ineligible
to benefit from the CQI.
    Accordingly, to incentivize additional resting liquidity, including
displayed liquidity, on IEX, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees
applicable to orders that remove resting liquidity when the CQI is on
if such orders constitute at least 5% of the Member's volume executed
on IEX and at least 1,000,000 shares, on a monthly basis, measured on a
per market participant identifier (``MPID'') basis. As proposed, such
orders that exceed the 5% and 1,000,000 share thresholds would be
assessed a fee of $0.0030 per each incremental share executed (or 0.3%
of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced
below $1.00) that exceeds the threshold. For example, assume Member XYZ
executed 100,000,000 shares through its MPID 1234 during a particular
month, and 6,000,000 of such shares removed liquidity while the CQI was
on. The 6,000,000 shares executed when the CQI was on exceed the
threshold since such shares are more than 5% of MPID 1234's monthly
volume (i.e., 5,000,000) and at least 1,000,000 shares. Member XYZ
would therefore be charged the fee on 1,000,000 shares which is the
incremental number of shares above 5% of the 100,000,000 shares
executed by MPID 1234 during the month.
    Setting the fee threshold at 5% and 1,000,000 shares is a narrowly
tailored approach, designed to only charge the increased fee in
circumstances where the Member executes a meaningful portion of its
volume via liquidity removing orders when the CQI is on, and not charge
the fee for executions of this type that are more likely to be
incidental to broader trading activity by the Member and not part of a
specific trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods
of quote instability. The Exchange proposes to refer to this pricing as
the ``Crumbling Quote Remove Fee'' on the Fee Schedule with a Fee Code
Indicator of ``Q'' to be provided by the Exchange on execution reports
to Members removing liquidity when the CQI is on.
    As proposed, to provide transparency about potential fees, the
Exchange will begin providing Fee Code Indicator Q on execution reports
at least one month prior to implementation of the Crumbling Quote
Remove Fee so that Members can assess the impact of the new fee and
make any corresponding adjustments to their trading strategies. IEX
will announce the availability of new Fee Code Indicator Q
approximately 30 days after effectiveness of this rule filing. IEX will
provide at least ten business days' notice of implementation of the
proposed fee within 90 days of effectiveness of this rule filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \14\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \15\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities. Additionally, IEX believes that the proposed fee is
consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\16\ of the Act in particular in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and
open market and national market system, and in general to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new Crumbling Quote Remove Fee is designed to enhance
the Exchange's market quality by encouraging Members and other market
participants to add more liquidity to the Exchange order book, which
benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that trading strategies that target
resting liquidity during periods of quote instability seek to trade at
prices that are about to become stale, and thus discourage other market
participants from entering liquidity providing orders on the Exchange.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable because it
would create an added incentive for Members and other market
participants to provide liquidity on IEX since the increased fee may
result in fewer orders seeking to remove liquidity when the CQI is on,
and concomitant overall better execution quality.
    Other exchanges offer incentives in the form of rebates and/or
reduced fees that are designed to encourage market participants to send
increased levels of order flow to such exchanges. These typically take
the form of lower fees and higher rebates for meeting specified volume
tiers.\17\ These fee and rebate structures are typically justified by
other exchanges on the basis that increased liquidity benefits all
investors by deepening the exchange's liquidity pool, which provides
price discovery and investor protection benefits.\18\ The Exchange also
notes that other exchanges charge different fees (or provide rebates)
to the buyer and seller to an execution, which are generally referred
to as either maker-taker or taker-maker pricing schemes. Typically, the
exchange offering such pricing is seeking to incentivize orders that
provide or remove liquidity, based on which type of orders receive a
rebate. While these pricing schemes discriminate against the Member
party to the trade that is charged a fee (in favor of the Member party
to the trade that is paid a rebate) the Commission has not found these
fees to be unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., New York Stock Exchange Price List 2017,
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf. See also, Nasdaq Rule 7018.
    \18\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80034
(February 14, 2017), 82 FR 11275 (February 21, 2017) (File No. SR-
BatsEDGX-2017-09).
    \19\ See note 15 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposal seeks to promote increased liquidity and
price discovery on the Exchange by providing a fee designed to
incentivize liquidity providing orders that can improve the quality of
the market. The Exchange believes that, to the extent the fee is
successful in reducing targeted and aggressive liquidity removing
orders, it would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of
transactions and the market generally, thereby benefiting multiple
classes of market participants and supporting the public interest and
investor protection purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that maker-taker and taker-maker pricing
schemes in general create needless complexity in market structure in
various ways and result in conflicts of interest between brokers and
their customers. Accordingly, IEX has made a decision not to adopt
rebate provisions in favor of a more transparent pricing structure that
generally charges equal fees (or in some cases, no fee) for a
particular trade to both the ``maker'' and ``taker'' of liquidity.
Given this decision, IEX must use other means to incentivize orders to
rest on its order book. IEX's execution quality is one important
incentive, but this incentive can be undercut by trading strategies
that target resting orders during periods of quote instability.
Accordingly, IEX believes that the proposed Crumbling Quote Remove Fee
is one reasonable way to compete with other exchanges for order flow,
consistent with its alternative exchange model and without relying on
rebates.
    As discussed in the Purpose section, the increased fee would only
be charged

on incremental orders above the 5% and 1,000,000 share monthly
thresholds that remove resting liquidity when the CQI is on. The
Exchange believes that limiting the fee to such circumstances is
reasonable and equitable because it would not apply when executions
taking liquidity while the CQI is on are likely to be incidental and
not part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting
liquidity during periods of quote instability. Consequently, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure is not unfairly
discriminatory because it is narrowly tailored to charge a fee only on
trading activity that is indicative of a trading strategy that may
adversely affect execution quality on IEX and is reasonably related to
the purpose of encouraging liquidity providing orders on IEX without
the use of rebates.
    The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate, and consistent
with the Act, to not charge a fee to Members that do not exceed the 5%
and 1,000,000 share thresholds during the month in question. This
flexibility is designed to address limited inadvertent liquidity
removal when the CQI is on for Members whose order flow during such
times is incidental. In addition, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate, and consistent with the Act, to not charge a fee to
Members for the execution of buy (sell) orders that take liquidity at
prices above (below) the Protected NBO (NBB) during the two
milliseconds when the CQI is on because such executions are not
indicative of a trading strategy that targets resting orders at soon to
be stale prices during periods of quote instability.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the data from June 2017
supports the position that the proposed threshold is narrowly tailored
to only charge the fee based on objective criteria indicating that
execution of the orders in question reasonably appear to be part of a
deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during
periods of quote instability. Based on data from June 2017, the
Exchange estimates that only 13 Members each using one unique MPID (out
of 125 total Members trading through 158 MPIDS that traded on IEX
during the month) would have been subject to the proposed fee, five of
which would have paid less than $1,500 in such fees.\20\ The Members
that were above the threshold also present a significantly different
order entry profile than Members below the threshold with respect to
orders entered when the CQI was on. For the 13 Member MPIDs above the
threshold, 63.1% of such orders were marketable to the midpoint of the
NBBO (64.3% for the eight Member MPIDs that would have paid more than
$1,500), while for Member MPIDs below this number was only 13.4%. The
Exchange believes that this difference evidences that Members above the
threshold were more likely to be engaging in a deliberate strategy to
target resting orders at soon to be stale prices.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The overall range would have been $426.49 to $123,897.20.
    \21\ Analysis of trading on IEX during April, May and July is
consistent with the June data analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act and
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its members and other persons using its facilities to measure
whether the threshold is reached on an MPID basis. As discussed above,
the threshold is designed to narrowly focus on executions that appear
to be part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting
liquidity during periods of quote instability. The Exchange believes
that Members that utilize multiple MPIDs generally use different MPIDs
for different trading strategies or customers. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that measuring by MPID is a more precise manner of assessing
whether a Member's trading strategy (or that of a customer) is part of
a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during
periods of quote instability.
    Accordingly, the Exchange submits that the proposed threshold is
narrowly tailored to address particular trading strategies (rather than
particular classes of Members) that may operate to disincentivize the
entry of resting orders by other market participants. Specifically, and
as discussed above, to the extent the proposed fee is successful in
reducing such trading strategies on IEX, it may result in market
quality improvements which could benefit multiple classes of market
participants.
    The Exchange further believes that charging the Crumbling Quote
Remove Fee only to the liquidity remover is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is designed to incentivize order flow that
enhances the quality of trading on the Exchange and disincentivize
trading that does not. As discussed above, IEX believes that there are
precedents for exchanges to charge different fees based upon meeting
(or not meeting) particular criteria, as well as maker-taker and taker-
maker pricing structures whereby the liquidity adder and remover to a
trade are subject to differing fees and rebates, to incentivize certain
types of trading activity. Fees and rebates based on maker-taker and
taker-maker pricing as well as on volume-based tiers have been widely
adopted by equities exchanges. And in some cases, maker-taker or taker-
maker pricing has been combined with volume-based tiers that result in
differential fees and rebates for different exchange members. These fee
structures have been permitted by the Commission. For example, Bats
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') previously offered a rebate contingent
upon adding specified amounts of liquidity to EDGA.\22\ Notwithstanding
that certain classes of members (e.g., exchange routing brokers) do not
typically add liquidity on competing exchanges, this fee structure was
justified by EDGA on the basis that, generally, it encourages growth in
liquidity on EDGA and applies equally to all members.\23\ Similarly,
while the proposed IEX fee structure will result in the Crumbling Quote
Remove Fee being imposed only on members using specific trading
strategies, it is also designed to attract liquidity to IEX and applies
equally to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80976 (June 20,
2017), 82 FR 28920 (June 26, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGA-2017-18).
    \23\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69066 (March
7, 2013), 78 FR 16023 (March 13, 2013) (SR-EDGA-2013-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that there is precedent to charge a
different fee (or pay a different rebate) based on the execution price
of an order. The Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. pays a rebate of $0.0017 to a
non-displayed order that adds liquidity, while if such an order
receives price improvement it does not receive a rebate or pay a
fee.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Bats BZX Exchange Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, maker-taker, taker-maker, and volume tier based fee
structures (separately or in combination) have been adopted by other
exchanges on the basis that they may discriminate in favor of certain
types of members but not in an unfairly discriminatory manner in
violation of the Act. As with such fee structures, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is narrowly tailored to disincentive to all
Members from deploying trading strategies designed to chase short-term
price momentum during periods when the CQI is on and thus potentially
adversely impact liquidity providing orders. IEX believes that, to the
extent it is successful in this regard, the proposed fee structure may
lead to increased liquidity providing orders on IEX which could benefit
multiple classes of market participants through increased trading

opportunities and reduced latency arbitrage.
    Further, the Exchange notes that the Nasdaq Stock Market
(``Nasdaq'') charges excess order fees (ranging from $0.005 to $0.01
per excess weighted order) on certain members that have a relatively
high ratio of orders entered away from the NBBO to orders executed in
whole or in part, subject to a carve-outs for specified lower volume
members and certain registered market makers.\25\ In its rule filing
adopting the fee Nasdaq justified it as designed to achieve
improvements in the quality of displayed liquidity to the benefit of
all market participants.\26\ Nasdaq also asserted that the fee is
reasonable because market participants may readily avoid the fee by
making improvements in their order entry practices, noting that
``[i]deally, the fee will be applied to no one because market
participants will adjust their behavior to avoid the fee.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(3)(m).
    \26\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66951 (May 9,
2012), 77 FR 28647 (May 15, 2012) (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-055).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposed IEX fee is designed to incentivize the
entry of liquidity providing orders that can enhance the quality of the
market and disincentivize certain liquidity removing orders that can
degrade the quality of the market. Participants can manage their fees
by making adjustments to their order entry practices, to decrease their
entry of orders designed to target resting liquidity during periods of
quote instability. And, as with the Nasdaq excess order fees, ideally,
the fee will be applied to no one, because participants will adjust
their trading activity to account for the pricing change. Thus, the
Exchange believes that the $0.0030 per share executed fee is reasonably
related to the trading activity IEX is seeking to disincentivize.
    IEX also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable and consistent
with the Act, to charge a fee of $0.0030 per share executed (or 0.3% of
the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below
$1.00) that exceed the threshold described herein because it is within
the transaction fee range charged by other exchanges \28\ and
consistent with Rule 610(c) of Regulation NMS.\29\ Although the amount
of the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee may not be adequate to fully
disincentivize Members from deploying trading strategies designed to
chase short-term price momentum during periods when the CQI is on, the
Exchange is hopeful that it will at least reduce such activity based on
the economic disincentives that the fee will provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See note 14 supra.
    \29\ 17 CFR 242.610(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed new fee code
indicator, to be provided on execution reports, will provide
transparency and predictability to Members as to applicable transaction
fees. In this regard, IEX notes that Members will be able to maintain a
tally of executions of liquidity taking orders potentially subject to
the CQI fee on a monthly basis, and calculate whether the proportion of
such orders is more than 5% of their total monthly volume on IEX. Using
IEX execution reports, Members can calculate whether the sum of
liquidity removing shares executed with Fee Code Indicator Q is more
than 1,000,000 shares, and whether the sum of shares executed with Fee
Code Indicator Q divided by the sum of total volume executed on IEX is
more than 5%. In addition, IEX will provide the new feed code indicator
to Members for at least one month prior to implementation of the
Crumbling Quote Remove Fee so that Members can assess the potential
impact of the new fee on their IEX order entry practices, and make any
adjustments that the Members determines are warranted. The Exchange
does not believe that it would be useful to publicly disseminate when
the CQI is on in a particular security through a proprietary market
data feed in view of the fact that the CQI is only on for two
milliseconds at a time, given the latencies inherent in dissemination
and receipt of proprietary market data. IEX Rule 11.190(g) describes
with specificity when the CQI is on. And, as discussed above, the data
suggests that Members that would be potentially impacted by the
Crumbling Quote Remove Fee are engaging in purposeful activity and are
thus able to determine with reasonable certainty when the CQI is on.
    Moreover, IEX believes that the fee will help to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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, because the fee is designed
to reduce the entry of liquidity removing orders that can degrade the
quality of the market and incentivize liquidity providing orders that
can improve the quality of the market, thereby promoting greater order
interaction and inhibiting potentially abusive trading practices.
    Finally, and as discussed in the Burden on Competition section, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
Members and market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing structure may increase competition and hopefully draw
additional volume to the Exchange by enhancing the quality of
executions across all participants when the CQI is on. As discussed in
the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee structure is a narrowly
tailored approach, designed to enhance the Exchange's market quality by
incentivizing trading activity that the Exchange believes enhances the
quality of its market. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
would contribute to, rather than burden, competition, as the fee is
intended to incentivize Members and market participants to send
increased liquidity providing order flow to the Exchange, which may
increase IEX's liquidity and market quality, thereby enhancing the
Exchange's ability to compete with other exchanges. Further, the
proposed fee is in line with fees charged by other exchanges.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules
at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the
Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that
such fees would burden competition of Members or competing venues in a
manner that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act

because, while the proposed fee would only be assessed in some
circumstances, those circumstances are not based on the type of Member
entering the liquidity removing order but on the percent and amount of
liquidity removing volume that the Member executes when the CQI is on.
Further, the proposed fee is intended to encourage market participants
to bring increased volume to the Exchange, which benefits all market
participants.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \30\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2017-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2017-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-IEX-2017-27, and should be
submitted on or before September 21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18447 Filed 8-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20549-20550]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2019-0768; FRL-9993-42-Region 4]

Florida: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final authorization.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting Florida
final authorization for changes to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency published
a Proposed rule on February 22, 2019, and provided for public comment.
The Agency received two comments in support of authorizing the Florida
program changes. These comments can be reviewed in the docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2019-0768. No further
opportunity for comment will be provided.

DATES: This final authorization is effective May 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2019-0768. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8960; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What changes to Florida's hazardous waste program is EPA authorizing
with this action?

    Florida submitted a complete program revision application, dated
August 31, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final
decision that Florida's hazardous waste program revisions that are
being authorized are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. For a list
of State rules being authorized with this Final Authorization, please
see the Proposed rule published in the February 22, 2019, Federal
Register at 84 FR 5650.

B. What is codification and is EPA codifying Florida's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA does this by adding those citations and references to
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the
authorization of Florida's revisions at this time. However, EPA
reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart K, for the
authorization of Florida's program changes at a later date.

C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final authorization revises Florida's authorized hazardous
waste

management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no
requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. For
further information on how this authorization complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the Proposed rule
published in the February 22, 2019 Federal Register at 84 FR 5650. The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document 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 in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
final action will be effective May 10, 2019.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-09690 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76626-76628]
[DOCID:fr17de08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

December 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-28-000.
    Applicants: Wapsipinicon Wind Project LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act for the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities,
Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: EC09-29-000.
    Applicants: Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC.
    Description: Application of Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for
Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG09-19-000.
    Applicants: Hay Canyon Wind LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Hay Canyon Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081208-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 29, 2008.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1266-009; ER01-1268-010; ER01-1269-009; ER01-
1270-012; ER01-1271-010; ER01-1273-010; ER01-1277-009; ER01-1278-012;
ER02-1213-008.
    Applicants: Mirant Bowline, LLC; Mirant Canal, LLC; Mirant Chalk
Point, LLC; Mirant Delta, LLC; Mirant Kendall, LLC; Mirant Mid-
Atlantic, LLC; Mirant Potomac River, LLC; Mirant Potrero, LLC; Mirant
Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Mirant Bowline, LLC et al. submits Amendment to 6/6/08
filing of Notice of Non Material Change in Status and Order 697 Tariff
Revisions.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1135-003; ER02-783-007; ER06-45-001; ER08-203-
001; ER02-855-008; ER01-2262-009; ER03-438-007.
    Applicants: EPCOR Energy Marketing (US) Inc.; EPCOR Merchant and
Capital (US) Inc.; EPCOR Energy Marketing (US) Inc., EPCOR POWER
(CASTLETON) LLC; Primary Energy of North Carolina LLC; EPDC, Inc.;
Frederickson Power L.P.; ManChief Power Company LLC.
    Description: EPCOR Energy Marketing (US) Inc et al submit a notice
of change in status re market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 12/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-195-012.
    Applicants: Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Locust Ridge Wind Farm,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-364-004.
    Applicants: APX, Inc.
    Description: APX, Inc submits a proposed revision to its FERC
Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 10.
    Filed Date: 11/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081124-0316.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 11, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1524-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits Sub Original Sheet
55 to its 9/11/08 filing of Second Amended and Restated Partial
Requirements Service Agreement with Rutherford Electric Membership
Corp.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-187-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison request that the Tariff
Sheet be made effective on 1/1/09 the same date as the remainder of the
filing.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081208-0620.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-328-001.
    Applicants: TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd.
    Description: TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd submits an amendment to
its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-362-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company et al submits revised
Partial Requirements Service Agreement between Progress and Piedmont
Electric Membership Corporation Rate Schedule FERC 172 etc.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-363-000.
    Applicants: Mid Continent Area Power Pool.
    Description: Mid Continent Area Power Pool submits revisions to its
FERC Electric Tariff 1R1 et al.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-364-000.
    Applicants: Edison Sault Electric Company.

    Description: Edison Sault Electric Company submits Supplemental
Agreement No 11 to the Contract for Electric Service, dated 11/21/08
etc.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-365-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits Service
Agreement No 265 between FPL and Georgia Transmission Corporation etc.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-366-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff and on 12/8/09 PJM submit an errata to
this filing.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2008; 12/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0128; 20081208-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-367-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff to add a new Schedule 12A etc.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-368-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised tariff sheets
to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, and the Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-369-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff, Amended and Restated Operating
Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-370-000.
    Applicants: EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC.
    Description: EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC submits a Notice of Name
Change of Primary Energy of North Carolina LLC to EPCOR USA NC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-371-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator C.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits informational filing intended to provide notice regarding the
CAISO's revised Transmission Access Charges, effective 9/1/08.
    Filed Date: 12/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081204-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-372-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc submits two amended Rate
Schedules providing for power coordination and interchange services.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-373-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a revised rate
sheet for the Communication Facilities Agreement with the City of
Riverside.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-374-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc submits Second
Revised Sheet 47 et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1,
effective 1/2/09.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-375-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc submits First Revised Sheet No.
8 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 4, effective 12/5/08.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-0190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-71-002.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc. files the Joint Open Access
Transmission Tariff--First Revised Volume No. 1 Pursuant to Order No.
890 Compliance OATT Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081205-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 26, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29918 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P