[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63693-63695]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26436]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65499; File No. SR-ISE-2011-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Professional Customer Fees

October 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 26, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I
and II 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees relating to certain
professional customer orders executed on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 statements 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
    ISE proposes to increase the execution fee for ``professional
customers,'' who execute orders as a result of taking liquidity from
ISE's order book in certain option classes, from $0.18 per contract to
$0.20 per contract. This proposed fee change is applicable to option
classes that are not subject to the Exchange's modified maker/taker
pricing structure (``Non-Select Symbols''). In addition to the Non-
Select Symbols, this proposed fee change shall also apply to non-
complex orders in option classes that are in the Penny Pilot
program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange recently extended its maker/taker pricing
structure to all complex orders in option classes that are in the
Penny Pilot program. See Exchange Act Release No. 65021 (August 3,
2011), 76 FR 48933 (August 9, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-45). The Penny
Pilot program, which commenced on January 26, 2007, permits ISE and
all of the other options exchanges to quote certain option classes
in pennies. See Exchange Act Release No. 55161 (January 24, 2007),
72 FR 4754 (February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62). The current pilot is
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011. See Exchange Act Release
No. 63437 (December 6, 2010), 75 FR 77032 (December 10, 2010) (SR-
ISE-2010-116).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE rules distinguish between Priority Customer Orders \4\ and
Professional Orders.\5\ For purpose of this discussion, ``professional
customers'' are non-broker/dealer participants who enter at least 390
orders per day on average during a calendar month for their own
beneficial account(s). The Exchange notes that the level of trading
activity by professional customers more resembles that of broker/
dealers, i.e., proprietary traders, than it does of a retail, or
``Priority'' customer. As a result, professional customers are on
parity with broker/dealers and generally pay the same transaction fees
as broker/dealers. For example, for years broker/dealer orders have
been charged an execution fee of $0.20 per contract in the Non-Select
Symbols. And recently, the Exchange began charging professional
customers who execute orders as a result of posting liquidity to ISE's
order book in the Non-Select Symbols $0.20 per contract.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
    \5\ A Professional Order is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37C) as
an order that is for the account of a person or entity that is not a
Priority Customer.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61434 (January 27,
2010), 75 FR 5826 (February 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed fee change, the Exchange seeks to standardize
the fee charged to professional customers for trading on the Exchange
in the Non-Select Symbols as all professional customers will now pay
$0.20 per contract, regardless of whether they are posting liquidity or
taking liquidity in the Non-Select Symbols and for non-complex orders
in option classes that are in the Penny Pilot program. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fees for professional customers will allow
the Exchange to remain competitive with other options exchanges who
apply fees to professional customers. Further, in addition to
standardizing theses [sic] fees, the Exchange believes the proposed fee
change will make the Exchange's transaction fees simpler and more
concise to Exchange Members.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
October 3, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes will generally allow the Exchange to
better compete for professional customer order flow and thus enhance
competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to
assess a $0.20 per contract fee for professional customers who take
liquidity from the Exchange's order book in the Non-Select Symbols and
for non-complex orders in option classes that are in the Penny Pilot
program is equitable and reasonable as it will standardize fees charged
by the Exchange for all professional customers that engage in a similar
activity. The Exchange further believes it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to charge professional customers the same
level of fees that the Exchange charges broker/dealers as both groups
of market participants essentially engage in similar trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-64. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2011-64 and should be
submitted on or before November 3, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26436 Filed 10-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77160-77162]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31241]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68529; File No. SR-CME-2012-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Liquidity
Factor of CME's CDS Margin Methodology

December 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 10, 2012, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to make an adjustment to one particular component of
its current CDS margin model. The text of the proposed rule change is
below. Italicized text indicates additions; bracketed text indicates
deletions.
* * * * *

CME CDS Liquidity Margin Factor Calculation Methodology

    The Liquidity Factor will be calculated as the sum of two
components:
    (1) A concentration charge for market exposure as a function of
absolute Spread DV01 (a portfolio sensitivity to 1% par spread shock);
and
    (2) A concentration charge for portfolio basis exposure as a
function of Residual Spread DV01 (which is the difference between the
Gross Spread DV01 and the Net Spread DV01 of the portfolio).
    CME will also establish a floor component to the Liquidity Factor
using the current Gross Notional Function with the following
modifications: (1) the concentration scalar will be removed; and (2)
the maximum DST would be replaced by series-tenor specific DST values
based on the series and tenor of the relevant HY and IG positions, as
applicable.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed change is also available at CME's Web site
at http://www.cmegroup.com, at the principal office of CME, 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, CME included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,

and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by CME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME's currently approved credit default swap margin methodology
utilizes a ``multi-factor'' portfolio model to determine margin
requirements for credit default swap (``CDS'') instruments. The model
incorporates risk-based factors that are designed to represent the
different risks inherent to CDS products. The factors are aggregated to
determine the total amount of margin required to protect a portfolio
against exposures resulting from daily changes in CDS spreads. For both
total and minimum margin calculations, CME evaluates each CDS contract
held within a portfolio. These positions are distinguished by the
single name of the underlying entity, the CDS tenor, the notional
amount of the position, and the fixed spread or coupon rate. For
consistency, margins for CDS indices in a portfolio are handled based
on the required margin for each of the underlying components of the
index.
    CME proposes to make an adjustment to one particular component of
its current CDS margin model, the liquidity risk factor. This CDS
margin model component is designed to capture the risk that
concentrated positions may be difficult or costly to unwind following
the default of a CDS clearing member.
The Liquidity Risk Factor in CME's Current CDS Margin Model
    The current liquidity/concentration factor (``Liquidity Factor'')
of CME's margin methodology for a portfolio of CDS indices is the
product of (1) the gross notional amount for each family (i.e., CDX IG
or CDX HY) of CDS positions in a portfolio (2) the current bid/ask of
the 5 year tenor of the ``on the run'' (OTR) contract (3) the Duration/
Series/Tenor (``DST'') factor and (4) a concentration factor based upon
the gross notional for each of the CDX IG and CDX HY contracts (``Gross
Notional Function''). The associated margin for a CDS portfolio
attributed to the Liquidity Factor is the sum of the Liquidity Factor
calculations for each family of CDS positions in the portfolio.
    The calculation of the Liquidity Factor is based on the premise
that the 5-year OTR index is the most liquid CDS index product. As
such, the methodology is designed to evaluate the liquidity exposure of
each position in a CDS portfolio relative to the 5-year OTR index.
    For each index family (i.e., CDX IG and CDX HY), a DST matrix is
calculated based on the historical bid-ask averages of each cleared
position relative to the OTR 5-year historical bid-ask averages. Then,
the maximum DST values are used as the DST factors. Such maximum DST
factors are then applied to the product of 5-year OTR bid-ask spread
(adjusted for duration for CDX IG only) and the Gross Notional of all
positions within each index family. The resulting products are further
scaled by concentration factors in order to account for oversized (as
measured by Gross Notional) portfolios. The concentration factors are
based on exponential functions of the Gross Notional of each index
family in a given portfolio.
Proposed Changes to the Liquidity Risk Factor
    As liquidation costs are dependent on the risk in a portfolio, CME
is proposing to use an index portfolio's market risk rather than its
gross notional as the basis for determining the margins associated with
the Liquidity Factor. The proposed changes would calculate the
Liquidity Factor as the sum of two components:
    (1) A concentration charge for market exposure as a function of
absolute Spread DV01 (a portfolio sensitivity to 1% par spread shock);
and
    (2) A concentration charge for portfolio basis exposure as a
function of Residual Spread DV01 (which is the difference between the
Gross Spread DV01 and the Net Spread DV01 of the portfolio).
    CME expects that these proposed changes would not generally impact
smaller portfolios whose liquidation costs are driven by the market
bid/ask spread rather than by the cost of hedging, and are therefore
adequately captured by the existing Liquidity Factor methodology. To
account for the risks associated with such smaller portfolios, CME also
proposes to establish a floor component to the Liquidity Factor using
the current Gross Notional Function described above with the following
modifications: (1) the concentration scalar would be removed as
concentration risk would already be accounted for by the concentration
charge component outlined above; and (2) the maximum DST would be
replaced by series-tenor specific DST values based on the series and
tenor of the relevant HY and IG positions, as applicable. CME expects
that large (by notional amount) portfolios will be impacted by the
proposed changes more than smaller portfolios.
    The proposed liquidity risk factor model adjustments do not require
any changes to rule text in the CME rulebook and do not necessitate any
changes to CME's CDS Manual of Operations. The change will be announced
to CDS market participants in an advisory notice that will be issued
prior to implementation.
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act.\4\ The enhancements to CME's current CDS margin methodology will
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of security-based swaps
and contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds associated
with security-based swap transactions. CME believes the proposed rule
changes accomplish those objectives because the changes are designed to
incorporate how the liquidity risk factor is affected by not only
portfolio concentration based on gross notional, but also the
composition of the portfolio based on an underlying strategy. CME
believes the proposed rule changes would also better align CME's margin
methodology with the liquidity profile of the actual instruments in the
portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited comments regarding this proposed rule change.
CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested
parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2012-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-34. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/files/SEC_19B-4_12-34.pdf.
    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-CME-2012-34
and should be submitted on or before January 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary .
[FR Doc. 2012-31241 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50355-50356]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG18-130-000.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator status.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2630-002; ER16-1914-002.
    Applicants: NGP Blue Mountain I LLC, Patua Acquisition Company,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status NGP Blue
Mountain I LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180927-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-459-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Pursuant to
August 31, 2018 Letter Order re: OVEC Integration to be effective 12/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 9/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180927-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2025-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: DEC-Central Power EPC PPSA
Compliance Filing to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2496-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Rate Schedules
to add new DOE Reliability Services Agreement to be effective 12/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 9/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180927-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2497-000.
    Applicants: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC--
Reactive Service Update to be effective 12/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180927-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2498-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-27 2018
Interconnection Process Enhancements Amendment to be effective 11/27/
2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2499-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2880R2 Rattlesnake Creek
Wind Project GIA to be effective 9/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2500-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2236R10 Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2501-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PowerSouth NITSA Amendments
(Crumptonia, Pintlala, Enterprise & Oliver DPs) to be effective 11/27/
2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2502-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt
Ridgetop Energy, LLC and Pacific Crest Power, LLC to be effective 10/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2503-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Corp FERC Rate
Schedule T1145 to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2504-000.
    Applicants: Willow Springs Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Filing of Desert Flower
Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/28/18.
    Accession Number: 20180928-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 28, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21741 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65093-65095]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90122; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2020-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase
Maker Transaction Fees

October 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 6, 2020, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/byx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
October 1, 2020 (SR-CboeBYX-2020-026). On October 5, 2020, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeBYX-2020-027. On
October 6, 2020 the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 19% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Taker-Maker'' model
whereby it pays credits to members that remove liquidity and assesses
fees to those that add liquidity. The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets
forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for
securities at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate
of $0.0005 per share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses a
fee of $0.0019 per share for orders that add liquidity. The Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces

constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (September 28, 2020), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange currently provides a standard fee of
$0.0019 per share for liquidity adding orders (i.e., those yielding fee
codes B, V, Y) in securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange now
proposes to modestly increase the current standard fee of $0.00190 per
share to $0.00200 per share for orders that add liquidity for
securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange notes that although
this proposed standard fee for liquidity adding orders is higher than
the current standard fee for such orders, the proposed fee is in line
with similar fees for liquidity adding orders in place on other
exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Nasdaq BX, Inc. Pricing List, ``Charge for providing
liquidity through Nasdaq BX Equities System,'' which assesses a
standard fee of $0.0030 per share for displayed orders that add
liquidity. See also, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Fees Schedule, which
also assesses a standard fee of $0.0030 per share for displayed
orders that add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to amend the fee for non-displayed
orders that add liquidity using the Mid-Point Peg order type \6\ and
yield fee code ``MM'', [sic] Currently, orders yielding fee code'' MM''
are assessed a fee of $0.00050 in securities priced at or above $1.00.
Orders yielding fee code ``MM'' in securities priced below $1.00 are
not assessed a fee. The Exchange now proposes to increase the current
fee of $0.00050 per share to $0.00100 per share for orders yielding fee
code ``MM'' in securities priced at or above $1.00. Orders yield fee
code ``MM'' in securities priced below $1.00 would continue to be free.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee is lower than fees assessed on
similar liquidity adding orders on other equities exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 11.9(c)(9), which states that a Mid-Point Peg order
is a limit order that after entry into the System, the price of the
order is automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes
in the NBBO to be pegged to the mid-point of the NBBO, or,
alternatively, pegged to the less aggressive of the midpoint of the
NBBO or one minimum price variation inside the same side of the NBBO
as the order.
    \7\ See Nasdaq BX, Inc. Pricing List, ``Charge for providing
liquidity through Nasdaq BX Equities System'', which assesses a
standard fee of $0.0015 per share for non-displayed orders that add
liquidity using midpoint pegging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly notes that the Standard Rate Table in the
Exchange's fees schedule currently lists the standard fee and rebates
using only four decimals for orders priced at or above $1.00 that (1)
add liquidity, (2) remove liquidity or (3) route and remove liquidity,
whereas the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table in the fees schedule
lists fees and rebates using five decimals. To add consistency to the
fees schedule and alleviate potential confusion, the Exchange proposes
to update the fees and rebates in the Standard Rates table to 5
decimals. The Exchange does not believe this update is a substantive
change, but rather maintains clarity in the fees schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \10\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed 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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes
are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because the proposed
changes both represent a modest fee increase and such fees are equally
applicable to all Members of the Exchange. Additionally, as noted
above, the Exchange operates in highly competitive market. The Exchange
is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may
direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the
overall market. Moreover, the proposed standard fees for adding
liquidity orders and non-displayed orders that add liquidity using the
Mid-Point Peg order are still lower than those offered at other Taker-
Maker exchanges for similar transactions, respectively.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly believes the proposed change to update the fees
and rebate in the Standard Rates table to use five decimals instead of
four decimals to match the fees and rebates listed in the Fee Codes and
Associated Fees table provides consistency in the fees schedule and
alleviates potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
changes apply to all displayed liquidity adding orders in securities at
or above $1.00 equally and all non-displayed liquidity adding midpoint
peg orders in securities at or above $1.00 equally, and thus applies to
all Members equally. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the
Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they
may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other
equities exchanges and off-exchange venues and alternative trading
systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of
the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 19% of the market share. Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to
other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those
other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current

regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that this
market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number
    SR-CboeBYX-2020-029 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-CboeBYX-2020-029. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2020-029 and should be submitted
on or before November 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22705 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59149-59151]
[DOCID:fr17no09-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

November 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-15-000.
    Applicants: West Georgia Generating Company, L.L.C, DeSoto County
Generating Company, LLC, Broadway Gen Funding, LLC, Southern Power
Company.
    Description: West Georgia Generating Co, LLC et al. (Joint
Applicants) submits the joint application for authorization under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited and
Privileged Treatment.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4109-005; ER01-1178-006; ER03-175-009; ER03-
394-007; ER03-427-007; ER04-170-009; ER07-265-012; ER08-100-011; ER09-
1453-001; ER99-3426-011.
    Applicants: El Dorado Energy, LLC; Sempra Generation;
Termoelectrica U.S. LLC; Elk Hills Power, LLC; Mesquite Power, LLC;
MxEnergy Electric Inc.; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; Sempra Energy
Trading LLC; Gateway Energy Services Corporation; San Diego Gas &
Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Changes in Status of Sempra
Energy et al.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091102-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3121-021; ER02-2085-016; ER02-417-020; ER02-
418-020; ER03-1326-019; ER03-296-023; ER03-416-023; ER03-951-023; ER04-
94-020; ER05-1146-020; ER05-1262-022; ER05-332-020; ER05-365-020; ER05-
481-021; ER06-1093-018; ER06-200-019; ER07-1378-012; ER07-195-015;
ER07-242-014; ER07-254-013; ER07-287-013; ER07-460-010; ER08-387-010;
ER08-912-007; ER08-933-007; ER09-1284-002; ER09-1285-001; ER09-1723-
001; ER09-279-003; ER09-281-002; ER09-282-003; ER09-30-004; ER09-31-
004; ER09-32-005; ER09-382-003.
    Applicants: Klamath Energy LLC; Northern Iowa Windpower LLC;
Phoenix Wind Power LLC; Klamath Generation LLC; Colorado Green
Holdings, LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Klondike Wind Power
LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View Power Partners III, LLC; Shiloh I
Wind Project LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Klondike Wind Power II LLC;
Elk River Windfarm LLC; Trimont Wind I LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC;
Big Horn Wind Project LLC; Providence Heights Wind, LLC; Locust Ridge
Wind Farm, LLC; MinnDakota Wind LLC; Casselman Windpower, LLC; Klondike
Wind Power III LLC; Dillon Wind LLC; Atlantic Renewables Projects II
LLC; Iberdrola Renewables MBR Sellers; Lempster Wind, LLC; Rugby Wind,
LLC; Streator-Cayuga Ridge Wind Power, LLC; Dry Lake Wind Power, LLC;
Buffalo Ridge I LLC; Pebble Springs Wind, LLC; Moraine Wind II LLC; Elm
Creek Wind, LLC; Farmers City Wind, LLC; Barton Windpower LLC; Hay
Canyon Wind LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Report pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 35.42(d) of
Iberdrola Renewables MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091030-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-879-007; ER03-880-007; ER03-882-007.
    Applicants: D.E. Shaw Plasma Trading, LLC, D.E. Shaw & Co. Energy,
LLC, D.E. Shaw Plasma Power, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of D.E. Shaw Plasma
Trading, LLC, D.E. Shaw & Co. Energy, LLC and D.E. Shaw Plasma Power,
LLC .
    Filed Date: 10/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091030-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-947-008; ER08-1297-004; ER02-2559-010; ER01-
1071-015; ER02-669-009; ER02-2018-010; ER01-2074-009; ER08-1293-004;
ER08-1294-004; ER05-222-006; ER00-2391-010; ER98-2494-013; ER97-3359-
015; ER06-9-010; ER09-902-002; ER05-487-006; ER04-127-007; ER03-34-014;
ER98-3511-013; ER02-1903-011; ER99-2917-011; ER06-1261-009; ER03-179-
008; ER03-1104-011; ER03-1105-011; ER03-1332-005; ER09-138-002; ER08-
197-008; ER03-1333-006; ER03-1103-006; ER01-838-009; ER03-1025-005;
ER02-2120-007; ER05-714-004; ER01-1972-009; ER98-2076-017; ER03-155-
009; ER03-623-009; ER09-1462-001; ER08-250-005; ER07-1157-005; ER04-
290-005; ER02-256-002; ER09-988-003; ER09-832-002; ER09-989-003; ER09-
990-002; ER05-236-007; ER04-187-007; ER09-1297-001; ER07-174-009; ER08-
1296-004; ER07-875-004; ER02-2166-009; ER09-901-002; ER01-2139-013;
ER03-1375-006; ER08-1300-004; ER09-900-002; ER00-3068-009; ER98-3563-
013; ER9803564-014.
    Applicants: POSDEF Power Company, LP; Ashtabula Wind, LLC; Backbone
Mountain Windpower, LLC; Badger Windpower LLC; Bayswater Peaking
Facility, LLC; Blythe Energy, LLC; Calhoun Power Company, LLC; Crystal
Lake Wind, LLC; Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC; Diablo Winds, LLC; Doswell
Limited Partnership; ESI Vansycle Partners, LP; Florida Power & Light
Company; FPL Energy Burleigh County

Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Cabazon Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC;
FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC;
FPLE Maine Hydro, LLC; FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.; FPL Energy MH50,
LP; FPL Energy Mower County, LLC; FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC; FPL
Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC; FPL Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC; FPL
Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, LLC; FPL Energy
Oliver Wind II, LLC; FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC; FPL Energy South
Dakota Wind, LLC; FPL Energy Vansycle LLC; FPL Energy Wyman LLC; FPL
Energy Wyoming, LLC; FPLE Rhode Island State Energy, LP; Gexa Energy
LLC; Gray County Wind Energy, LLC; Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC; High
Winds, LLC; Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC; Lake Benton Power
Partners II, LLC; Langdon Wind, LLC; Logan Wind Energy LLC; Meyersdale
Windpower, LLC; Mill Run Windpower, LLC; NextEra Energy Duane Arnold,
LLC; NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC; NextEra Energy Point Beach,
LLC; NextEra Energy SeaBrook, LLC; Northeast Energy Associates, LP;
North Jersey Energy Associates, a L.P.; Northern Colorado Wind Energy,
LLC; Osceola Windpower, LLC; Osceola Windpower II, LLC; Peetz Table
Wind Energy, LLC; Pennsylvania Windfarms, Inc.; Sky River, LLC;
Somerset Windpower, LLC; Waymart Wind Farm L.P.; Story Wind, LLC;
Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC; FPL Energy Cape, LLC; FPL Energy Wyman,
LLC; FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC.
    Description: FPL Companies Site Control 2009 Third Quarterly
Report.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091030-5191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1469-003; ER01-2317-009; ER07-415-004; ER08-
1418-002; ER09-1061-001; ER97-324-016; ER97-3834-022; ER98-3026-012;
ER97-3834-022.
    Applicants: DTE East China, LLC; Metro Energy, LLC; DTE Pontiac
North, LLC; DTE Stoneman, LLC; Woodland Biomass Power Ltd.; Detroit
Edison Company; DTE Energy Trading, Inc.; DTE Edison America, Inc.; DTE
River Rouge No. 1, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Report of The Detroit Edison Company
Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Sec. 35.42(d).
    Filed Date: 11/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091102-5177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-412-003; ER09-1099-002.
    Applicants: Empire Generating Co, LLC, ECP Energy I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Empire
Generating Co, LLC and ECP Energy I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091030-5192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1404-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits Notice of Cancellation pursuant to
the requirements of Order No 614.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091103-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1286-003.
    Applicants: Elizabethtown Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of
Elizabethtown Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1287-003.
    Applicants: Lumberton Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Lumberton
Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1655-002.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm, LLC submits application
seeking acceptance of its proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091106-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1688-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corp submits executed Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-202-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a service
agreement wholesale distribution service and interconnection agreement
with Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District No. 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091103-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-209-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Co. of
Indiana, Inc.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company submits Original Sheet No.
1 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 7.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091104-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-212-000.
    Applicants: High Sierra Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: High Sierra Power Marketing, LLC submits Notice of
Cancellation of its market based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1, effective 11/5/09.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-213-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Power Asset Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Sierra Power Asset Marketing, LLC submits Notice of
Cancellation of its market based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1, effective 11/5/09.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-214-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits proposed
Notice of Cancellation of the Interconnection Agreement with West Texas
Municipal Power Agency.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-215-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed
Transmission Interconnection Agreement with West Texas Municipal Power
Agency.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-216-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC et al submits Second Revised
Service Agreement 453, which is a revised and

amended interconnection and operating agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-218-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sierra Pacific Power Company submits a non conforming
long term Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-219-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, as agent for Alabama Power
Company et al submits an amendment to the network integration
transmission service agreement with PowerSouth Energy Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-220-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Northern States Power Company submits proposed Notice
of Cancellation of the Electric Service Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-221-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company et al submits
notice canceling the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement
etc.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-222-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Kansas Gas and Electric Company submits Notice of
Cancellation of a Generating Municipal Electric Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-223-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091105-0140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-229-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Central Maine Power Company, Schedule 20A Service
Providers et al submits amendments to Schedule 20A of Section II of the
ISO New England, Inc Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff.
    Filed Date: 11/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091106-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-8-000.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Interstate Power and Light Company Application for
authorization to issue securities and request for waiver of competitive
bidding requirements.
    Filed Date: 10/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091030-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 20, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH08-19-000.
    Applicants: ITC Holdings Corp.
    Description: FERC-65B Joint Waiver Notification of ITC Holdings
Corp., et al.
    Filed Date: 11/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091106-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 27, 2009.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27480 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30407-30410]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0014; FRL-9349-1]

1,2-Ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2, 4-
diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-,
polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, when used as an inert
ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. ICR, Inc., on behalf of
Triton Systems, Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 1,2-
ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-
methylbenzene on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0014, is available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Britten, Registration Division
(7505P), 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?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0014 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 23, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0014, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20334) (FRL-9340-
4), EPA

issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7912) filed by
ICR, Inc., 1330 Dillon Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21228-1199 on
behalf of Triton Systems, Inc., 200 Turnpike Road, Chelmsford, MA
01824. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-
diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene (CAS Reg. No. 35297-61-1). That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments in response to this notice.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-,
polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW is greater than 10,000 daltons.
The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and
(less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-
diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene meets the criteria for a polymer to be
considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to
the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from
dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-
aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-,
polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene could be present in all
raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average
MW of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-
diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene is greater than 1 million daltons
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 1,2-
ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-
methylbenzene conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk
polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential
exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has
determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 1, 2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer
with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-
aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-

methylbenzene does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-
aminoethyl)-polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene. EPA has not
used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons
the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-
, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for 1,2-ethanediamine, N1-(2-
aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 1,2-
ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with 2,4-diisocyanato-1-
methylbenzene from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by alphabetically adding the
following entry immediately above the existing entry which reads in
part ``1, 2-Ethanediamine, polymer * * *.''

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
1,2-Ethanediamine, N1-(2-aminoethyl)-, polymer with           35297-61-1
 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu), one million.....

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-12110 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Pymetrozine (101103)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: June 21, 2012

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2003 to 2010.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

June 21, 2012

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Pymetrozine (101103)

Sorted Alphabetically

Reporting Years: 2003-2010

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Asparagus	        <500	   5	  10

2	Broccoli	        <500	<2.5	  10

3	Cabbage	        <500	<2.5	   5

4	Cantaloupes	       1,000	   5	  20

5	Cauliflower	        <500	   5	  10

6	Celery	        <500	  10	  30

7	Chicory* 	        <500	   NC	  NC

8	Cucumbers	        <500	  <1	<2.5

9	Lettuce	       1,000	   5	  15

10	Pecans	       1,000	<2.5	   5

11	Peppers	        <500	   5	  25

12	Potatoes	       4,000	   5	  10

13	Pumpkins	        <500	   5	  10

14	Spinach	        <500	<2.5	   5

15	Squash	        <500	<2.5	  10

16	Tobacco	        <500	  <1	<2.5

17	Tomatoes	       1,000	   5	  20

18	Watermelons	        <500	  <1	<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<500: indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

	  <2.5: indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

	  <1: indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

* California data only.

	  NC: Not calculated, only pounds a.i. is available.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.