[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34398-34401]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12666]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77889; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Change to the
Market Data Section of its Fee Schedule

May 24, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 17, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the Market Data section of
its fee schedule to: (i) Decrease the User fees for the EDGA Top and
EDGA Last Sale feeds; and (ii) amend the New External Distributor
Credit for the Bats One Feed.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its fee
schedule to: (i) Decrease the User fees for the EDGA Top and EDGA Last
Sale feeds; and (ii) amend the New External Distributor Credit for the
Bats One Feed.
    EDGA Top and Last Sale Fees
    EDGA Top is a market data feed that includes top of book quotations
and execution information for all equity securities traded on the
Exchange.\5\ EDGA Last Sale is a market data feed that includes last
sale information for all equity securities traded on Exchange.\6\ The
Exchange proposes to decrease the User fees for the EDGA Top and EDGA
Last Sale feeds. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(c).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(d).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'')
and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') also filed proposed rule
changes with Commission to amend similar fees for their respective
Top and Last Sale market data products. See File Nos. SR-BatsBYX-
2016-08 and SR-BatsEDGX-2016-18. The Exchange represents that the
proposed fees will continue to not cause the combined cost of
subscribing to EDGX, EDGA, BYX, and Bats BZX Exchange Inc.'s
(``BZX'') individual Top and Last Sale feeds to be greater than
those currently charged to subscribe to the Bats One Feed. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74285 (February 18, 2015), 80
FR 9828 (February 24, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11); 74283 (February 18,
2015), 80 FR 9809 (February 24, 2015) (SR-EDGA-2015-09); 74282
(February 17, 2015), 80 FR 9487 (February 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-
09); and 74284 (February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9792 (February 24, 2015)
(SR-BYX-2015-09) (``Initial Bats One Feed Fee Filings''). In these
filings, the Exchange represented that the cost of subscribing to
each of the underlying individual feeds necessary to create the Bats
One Feed would not be greater than the cost of subscribing to the
Bats One Feed. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not currently charge an External Distributor\8\
of EDGA Last Sale or EDGA Top a Distributor fee. The Exchange does,
however, charge those who receive either EDGA Top or EDGA Last Sale
from External Distributors different fees for both their
Professional\9\ and Non-Professional\10\

Users. The Exchange currently assesses a monthly fee for Professional
Users of $2.00 per User. Non-Professional Users are assessed a monthly
fee of $0.05 per User. The Exchange now proposes to decrease the
Professional User fee to $1.00 per User per month and the Non-
Professional User fee to $0.025 per User per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An ``External Distributor'' of an Exchange Market Data
product is defined as ``a Distributor that receives the Exchange
Market Data product and then distributes that data to a third party
or one or more Users outside the Distributor's own entity.'' See the
Exchange Fee Schedule available at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edga/.
    \9\ A ``Professional User'' is defined as ``any User other than
a Non-Professional User.'' See the Exchange Fee Schedule available
at http://batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/edga/.
    \10\ A ``Non-Professional User'' is defined as ``a natural
person who is not: (i) registered or qualified in any capacity with
the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state
securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii) engaged
as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in Section
202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank
or other organization exempt from registration under federal or
state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bats One Feed
    In sum, the Bats One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a
real-time basis, the aggregate best bid and offer (``BBO'') of all
displayed orders for securities traded on EDGA and its affiliated
exchanges and for which the Bats Exchanges report quotes under the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
The Bats One Feed also contains the individual last sale information
for the Bats Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the ``Bats
One Summary Feed''). In addition, the Bats One Feed contains optional
functionality which enables recipients to receive aggregated two-sided
quotations from the Bats Exchanges for up to five (5) price levels
(``Bats One Premium Feed'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Rule 13.8(b). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31,
2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055;
SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendments No. 2 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product
called the Bats One Feed) (``Bats One Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange charges External Distributors of the Bats One Summary
Feed a monthly Distribution fee of $5,000. The Exchange also offers a
New External Distributor Credit under which new External Distributors
of the Bats One Feed will not be charged a Distributor Fee for their
first three (3) months in order to allow them to enlist new Users to
receive the Bats One Summary Feed. The Exchange now proposes to
decrease the time a new External Distributor of the Bats One Feed will
not be charged a Distributor Fee from their first three (3) months to
their first one (1) month.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes that New External Distributor Credit
will continue to be available for three (3) months to those
Distributors who began to distribute the Bats One Summary Feed prior
to June 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes to its fee
schedule on June 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\14\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed fees
are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients. Lastly, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable and non-
discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all recipients of
Exchange data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \15\ in that it supports (i)
fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\16\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis.
EDGA Last Sale, EDGA Top and the Bats One Feed are distributed and
purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market
data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this
data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use
at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. The Exchange also believes the proposed
decrease to the External Distribution fees for EDGA Last Sale and EDGA
Top are reasonable and equitable in light of the continued benefits to
data recipients. To the extent consumers do purchase the data products,
the revenue generated will continue to offset the Exchange's fixed
costs of operating and regulating a highly efficient and reliable
platform for the trading of U.S. equities. It will also help the
Exchange to continue to cover its costs in developing and running that
platform, as well as ongoing infrastructure costs. Firms have a wide
variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such
as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and
consolidated data feeds. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make
any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific
pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, and the Bats One Feed further ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
such alternatives because the Exchange competes with other exchanges
(and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to consolidate
and distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges to
consolidate and distribute EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, or the Bats One
Feed, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease
subscribing to, the EDGA Top, EDGA Last Sale, or the Bats One Feed.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would

be so complicated that it could not be done practically.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Professional and Non-
Professional User fees for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale are equitable
and reasonable because they will continue to result in greater
availability to Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to recipient
firms and Users. In addition, the proposed fees are reasonable when
compared to similar fees for comparable products offered by the NYSE.
Specifically, NYSE offers NYSE BBO, which includes best bid and offer
for NYSE traded securities, for a monthly fee of $4.00 per professional
subscriber and $0.20 per non-professional subscriber.\18\ NYSE also
offers NYSE Trades, which is a data feed that provides the last sale
information for NYSE traded securities, for the same price as NYSE BBO.
The Exchange's proposed per User Fees for EDGA Top and EDGA Last Sale
are less than the NYSE's fees for NYSE Trades and NYSE BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Market Data Pricing dated March 2016 available at
http://www.nyxdata.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that amending the New External
Distributor Credit for the Bats One Feed is equitable and reasonable.
The Exchange notes that the New External Distributor Credit was
initially adopted at the time the Exchange began to offer the Bats One
Summary Feed to subscribers. It was intended to incentivize new
Distributors to enlist Users to subscribe to the Bats One Summary Feed
in an effort to broaden the product's distribution. The Exchange also
believes that decreasing the time during which the New External
Distributor Credit is available from three (3) to one (1) month for the
Bats One Feed is equitable and reasonable because the credit has been
available to Distributors since January 2015 providing new Distributors
with ample time to grow their subscriber bases during the available
three (3) month period. Decreasing the credit period to one (1) month
is equitable and reasonable as it would continue to provide new
Distributors ample time to grow their subscriber bases.

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

    The Exchange 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, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price EDGA Last Sale, EDGA Top, and the Bats One
Feed are constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges, other trading
platforms, and Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRF'') that compete with
each other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of
inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and
free delayed data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market
for proprietary data. This competitive pressure is evidenced by the
Exchange's proposal to decrease fees as described herein.
    The Exchange and its market data products are subject to
significant competitive forces and the proposed fees represent
responses to that competition. To start, the Exchange competes
intensely for order flow. It competes with the other national
securities exchanges that currently trade equities, with electronic
communication networks, with quotes posted in FINRA's Alternative
Display Facility, with alternative trading systems, and with securities
firms that primarily trade as principal with their customer order flow.
    In addition, EDGA Last Sale, EDGA Top, and the Bats One Feed
compete with a number of alternative products. For instance, EDGA Last
Sale, EDGA Top, and the Bats One Feed do not provide a complete picture
of all trading activity in a security. Rather, the other national
securities exchanges, the several TRFs of FINRA, and Electronic
Communication Networks (``ECN'') that produce proprietary data all
produce trades and trade reports. Each is currently permitted to
produce last sale information products, and many currently do,
including Nasdaq and NYSE. In addition, market participants can gain
access to EDGA last sale prices and top-of-book quotations, though
integrated with the prices of other markets, on feeds made available
through the SIPs.
    In sum, the availability of a variety of alternative sources of
information imposes significant competitive pressures on the Exchange's
data products and the Exchange's compelling need to attract order flow
imposes significant competitive pressure on the Exchange to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the proposed data product
fees. The proposed data product fees are, in part, responses to that
pressure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees would reflect an
equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities.
    In addition, when establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange
considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all Users. The existence of alternatives to EDGA Last Sale, EDGA
Top, and the Bats One Feed, including existing similar feeds by other
exchanges, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources,
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns
any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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 \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 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 proposal 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-09 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-09. 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-09, and should be
submitted on or before June 21, 2016.

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

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12666 Filed 5-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39640-39642]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16443]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 171

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0049; FRL-9334-4]
RIN 2070-AJ77

Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of the Pesticide Applicator
Certificate With the Underlying State or Tribal Certificate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule will reduce burden to restricted use pesticide
applicators and simplify federal certification expiration dates.
Restricted use pesticides (RUPs) are those which may generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment without additional
restrictions. RUPs may only be applied by or under the direct
supervision of an applicator certified as competent by a certifying
agency. A State, tribe, or Federal agency becomes a certifying agency
by receiving approval from EPA on their certification plan. In areas
not covered by a certifying agency, EPA may establish a Federal
certification plan and issue Federal certificates directly. One way EPA
may issue a Federal certificate is based on an existing valid
certificate from a certifying agency, and this final rule will
synchronize the expiration dates on the Federal certificate with that
of the certifying agency certificate on which the Federal certificate
is based.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0049, 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: Joe Hogue, Field and External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are or intend
to become a certified applicator under an EPA Federal certification
plan. Certified applicators are included in three major industries in
the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
described as crop production, animal production or exterminating, and
pest control services. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., individuals that
are private certified applicators on farms.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., individuals that
are private certified applicators on farms.
     Exterminating and pest control services (NAICS code
561710), e.g., individuals that are commercial certified applicators
for hire.
    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.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    This final rule is issued pursuant to the authority in sections 11
and 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136i and w). Section 11 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136i),
requires EPA to provide certification plans for applicators of RUPs.
Section 25 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136w), authorizes EPA to issue
regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.

II. Background

    Under the provisions of FIFRA section 3(d)(1)(C), EPA shall
classify a pesticide for restricted use, if, absent additional
regulatory restrictions, the Agency determines that it may generally
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. RUPs may be
applied only by a certified applicator or under the direct supervision
of a certified applicator.
    Pesticide applicators can be certified either by a certifying
agency (a State, tribe, or non-EPA Federal agency that has an EPA-
approved certification plan), or directly by EPA through a Federal
certification plan for an area or situation not covered by a certifying
agency's plan. Applicators must demonstrate competency to the
certifying agency granting the certificate, according to the
requirements of that agency's plan. Currently, all 50 States, some
federal agencies, and 4 tribes are certifying agencies (i.e., they
implement their EPA-approved certification plans). Applicators
certified by a State may apply RUPs in that State, and applicators
certified by a tribe may apply RUPs in that tribe's Indian country,
without a Federal certificate. However, under 40 CFR 171.11, in areas
where there is no EPA-approved certification plan in effect (currently,
most of Indian country), EPA may implement a Federal plan, thereby
allowing applicators to use RUPs in the area covered by the plan after
receiving Federal certification. Under 40 CFR 171.11(e), a Federal plan
may include an option that allows applicators to be issued an EPA
Federal certificate after submitting to EPA a certification form along
with documentation of a valid certificate from a certifying agency,
without further demonstration of competency.
    Applicator certificates have expiration dates to help ensure that
certified applicators maintain their competency.

All certifying agencies implement a recertification program for
applicators. These programs require certified applicators to continue
to meet the competency requirements either through continuing education
or examination.
    Section 171.11(e) states that an EPA Federal certificate based on a
certifying agency's certificate is valid for 2 years for commercial
applicators and 3 years for private applicators, or until the
expiration date of the original certifying agency certificate,
whichever occurs first. The duration of the certification period varies
significantly among States, with some currently being shorter and some
longer than the Federal certificate maximum of 2 or 3 years.
    On June 24, 2011 (76 FR 37045) (FRL-8863-7), EPA published a
proposed rule to eliminate the 2 or 3 year maximum for Federal
certificates and allow Federal certification to expire at the same time
as the underlying certifying agency certificate. The public comment
period for the proposed rule closed on August 23, 2011. EPA received
one comment, which was from a tribal government agency and supported
the proposal. The commenter said that the rule will ``eliminate
confusion about the different expiration dates and there will be less
paperwork.''

III. Final Rule

    This action will finalize what was proposed in June 2011. EPA is
amending 40 CFR 171.11(e) to synchronize the expiration dates for the
EPA Federal certificate with the certifying agency certifications of
RUP applicators. This minor revision does not pose any additional
requirement or burden and is expected to have a beneficial impact on
affected entities, without impacting human health or the environment.
EPA will benefit through the reduction of administration of Federal
certification plans. Additionally, this rule supersedes the expiration
dates described in the Navajo Certification Plan. Further explanation
of benefits and the underlying reasons for this revision are explained
in the proposed rule associated with this action (June 24, 2011; 76 FR
37045).

IV. FIFRA Mandated Reviews

    In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), EPA submitted a
draft of this final rule to the Committee on Agriculture in the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry in the United States Senate, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The
SAP and USDA waived review of this final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action will allow EPA to use the same expiration date for the
certification it grants, using the expiration date of the valid
certifying agency certification upon which the EPA certification is
based. It does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements.
The final rule will not otherwise involve any significant policy or
legal issues, and will not increase existing costs. In fact,
synchronizing the expiration dates can reduce burden because some
applicators will have to complete less paperwork by having a reduced
frequency of Federal recertification. As such, EPA is not required to
make special considerations or evaluations under the following
statutory and Executive Order review requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject
to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose or change any information collection
burden that requires additional review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been
approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and
included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable.
    The information collection activities contained in the regulations
are already approved under OMB control number 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No.
0155.09), and the changes to the expiration date do not change the
covered activities such that additional OMB review or approval is
required.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I
hereby certify that this final rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the
RFA, small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. In making this determination, the
impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small
entities because the primary purpose of regulatory flexibility analysis
is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify under RFA when the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has no expected economic
impact on small entities subject to the rule.
    The revision in this final rule will only synchronize the
certification expiration dates for restricted use applicators and is
not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on affected entities,
regardless of their size. It does not otherwise amend or impose any
other requirements. As such, this final rule will not have any adverse
economic impact on any entities, large or small.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    State, local, and tribal governments are not regulated by this
final rule, so it is not expected to affect these governments.
Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), EPA has
determined that this action is not subject to the requirements in
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA because it does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector in any 1 year. In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action will not have ``federalism implications'' as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is
not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. This rule only affects some applicators
of RUPs that are certified under an EPA federal plan by reducing their
paperwork burden, and it is not expected to impact human health or the
environment or impose any additional burden or restrictions, or
otherwise affect Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks, nor is it an ``economically significant regulatory
action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards that would require
the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of NTTAA (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. Therefore, this action does not involve
special consideration of environmental justice-related issues as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

VI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., 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
the 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 171

    Environmental protection, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 21, 2012.
 James Jones
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 171--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136i and 136w.

0
2. Section 171.11 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  171.11  Federal certification of pesticide applicators in States
or on Indian Reservations where there is no approved State or Tribal
certification plan in effect.

* * * * *
    (e) Recognition of other certificates. The Administrator may issue
a certificate to an individual possessing any other valid Federal,
State, or Tribal certificate without further demonstration of
competency. The individual shall submit the EPA certification form and
written evidence of valid certification to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office. The Administrator may deny issuance of such certificate if the
standards of competency for each category or subcategory identified in
the other Federal, State, or Tribal certificate are not sufficiently
comparable to justify waiving further demonstration of competency. The
Administrator may revoke, suspend, or modify such certificate if the
Federal, State, or Tribal certificate upon which it is based is
revoked, suspended, or modified. Unless suspended or revoked, a
certificate issued under this paragraph is valid until the expiration
date of the Federal, State, or Tribal certificate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-16443 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22402-22405]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-21-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-516); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-516 (Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff
Filings).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket
No. IC21-21-000) by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-516 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: This notice for FERC-516 includes 11 components listed in
the table below.\1\ Section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
requires that every public utility have all its jurisdictional rates
and tariffs on file with the Commission and make them available for
public inspection, within such time and in such form as the Commission
may designate. Section 205(d) of the FPA requires that every public
utility must provide notice to FERC and the public of any changes to
its jurisdictional rates and tariffs, file such changes with FERC, and
make them available for public inspection, in such manner as directed
by the Commission. FPA section 205 specifies that all rates and
charges, and related contracts and service conditions, for wholesale
sales and transmission of energy in interstate commerce must be filed
with the Commission and must be ``just and reasonable''. In addition,
FPA section 206 requires the Commission, upon complaint or its own
motion, to modify existing rates or services that are found to be
unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice does not address the requirements in the
Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in Docket No.
RM20-10. The Supplementary NOPR is available on FERC's eLibrary
system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) by searching
Docket No. RM20-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several rulemakings related to this information collection and its
components have been summarized below.
    In Order No. 745 (in Docket No. RM10-17), the Commission amended
its regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA). That amendment
sought to ensure that when a demand response resource participating in
an organized wholesale energy market administered by a Regional
Transmission Organization (RTO) or Independent System Operator (ISO)
has to demonstrate by a compliance filing that it has the capability to
balance supply and demand as an alternative to a generation resource,
and when dispatch of that demand response resource is cost-effective as
determined by the net benefits test described in the final rule, that
demand response resource must be compensated for the service it
provides to the energy market at the market price for energy, referred
to as the locational marginal price (LMP).\2\ This approach for
compensating demand response resources helps to ensure the
competitiveness of organized wholesale energy markets and remove
barriers to the participation of demand response resources, thus
ensuring just and reasonable wholesale rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The full text of the Final Rule is available on FERC's
eLibrary system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) by
searching Docket No. RM10-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order 845 (in Docket No. RM11-7), the Commission revised its
regulations to remedy undue discrimination in the procurement of
frequency regulation in the organized wholesale electric markets and
ensure that providers of frequency regulation receive just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential rates. To
remedy this undue discrimination, the Commission found

that it is just and reasonable to require all RTOs and ISOs to modify
their tariffs to provide for a two-part payment to frequency regulation
resources.\3\ The compensation methods for regulation service in RTO
and ISO markets failed to acknowledge the inherently greater amount of
frequency regulation service being provided by faster-ramping
resources. In addition, certain practices of some RTOs and ISOs
resulted in economically inefficient economic dispatch of frequency
regulation resources. By remedying these issues, the Commission removed
unduly discriminatory and preferential practices from RTO and ISO
tariffs and required the setting of just and reasonable rates. It
specifically required RTOs and ISOs to compensate frequency regulation
resources based on the actual service provided, including a capacity
payment that includes the marginal unit's opportunity costs and a
payment for performance that reflects the quantity of frequency
regulation service provided by a resource when the resource is
accurately following the dispatch signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The full text of the Final Rule is available on FERC's
eLibrary system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) by
searching Docket No. RM11-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order No. 764 (in Docket No. RM10-11), the Commission amended the
pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to remove unduly
discriminatory practices and to ensure just and reasonable rates for
Commission-jurisdictional services. Specifically, the Commission
removed barriers to the integration of variable energy resources by
requiring each public utility transmission provider to: (1) Offer
intra-hourly transmission scheduling; and, (2) incorporate provisions
into the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement requiring
interconnection customers whose generating facilities are variable
energy resources to provide meteorological and forced outage data to
the public utility transmission provider for the purpose of power
production forecasting.
    In Order 676-G (in Docket No. RM05-5-020), the Commission amended
its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 (which establish standards for business
practices and electronic communications for public utilities) to
incorporate by reference updated business practice standards adopted by
the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB) to categorize various products and services for
demand response and energy efficiency and to support the measurement
and verification of these products and services in organized wholesale
electric markets. These standards provided common definitions and
processes regarding demand response and energy efficiency products in
organized wholesale electric markets where such products are offered.
The standards also required each RTO and ISO to address in the RTO or
ISO's governing documents the performance evaluation methods to be used
for demand response and energy efficiency products. The standards
facilitated the ability of demand response and energy efficiency
providers to participate in organized wholesale electric markets,
reducing transaction costs and providing an opportunity for more
customers to participate in these programs, especially for customers
that operate in more than one organized market.
    In Order No. 676-H (in Docket No. RM05-5-022), the Commission
revised its regulations to incorporate by reference, with certain
enumerated exceptions, Version 003 of the Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities adopted by
the WEQ of NAESB as mandatory enforceable requirements. These standards
updated NAESB's WEQ Version 002 and Version 002.1 Standards to reflect
policy determinations made by the Commission in the Order Nos. 890,
890-A, 890-B and 890-C.\4\ In addition, the Commission listed
informationally, as guidance, NAESB's Smart Grid Standards (WEQ-016
through WEQ-020) in Part 2 of the Commission's regulations. The
Commission required public utilities and those entities with
reciprocity tariffs to modify their open access transmission tariffs
(OATTs) to include the WEQ standards that were incorporated by making a
compliance filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,261 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299
(2008), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC
] 61,228 (2009) (Order No. 890-C). The Version 002 standards also
included revisions made in response to Order No. 890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 819 (in Docket No. RM15-2), the Commission revised its
regulations to foster competition in the sale of primary frequency
response service. Specifically, the Commission amended its regulations
governing market-based rates for public utilities pursuant to the FPA
to permit the sale of primary frequency response service at market-
based rates by sellers with market-based rate authority for sales of
energy and capacity. The Commission found that a seller that already
has market-based rate authority as of the effective date of the Final
Rule is authorized as of that date to make sales of primary frequency
response service at market-based rates.\5\ Such a seller was required
to revise the third-party provider ancillary services provision of its
market-based rate tariff to reflect that it wished to make sales of
primary frequency response service at market-based rates. In order to
reduce their administrative burden, the Commission permitted such
sellers to wait to file this tariff revision until the next time they
made a market-based rate filing with the Commission, such as a notice
of change in status filing or a triennial update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The full text of the Final Rule is available on FERC's
eLibrary system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) by
searching Docket No. RM15-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 842 (in Docket No. RM16-6-000), the Commission revised
its regulations to require newly interconnecting large and small
generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to
install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of providing primary
frequency response as a condition of interconnection. To implement
these requirements, the Commission modified the pro forma Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). These changes were designed
to address the potential reliability impact of the evolving generation
resource mix, and to ensure that the relevant provisions of the pro
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are just, reasonable, and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential. Section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's
regulations requires every public utility with a non-discriminatory
OATT on file to also have a pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA on file
with the Commission. Each public utility transmission provider that has
a pro forma LGIA and/or pro forma SGIA within its OATT was required to
submit a compliance filing that demonstrates that it meets the
requirements set forth in the Final Rule within Docket No. RM16-6-000.
    In Order 845 (in Docket No. RM17-8), the Commission amended the pro
forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and the pro forma LGIA
to improve certainty, promote more informed interconnection, and
enhance interconnection processes. The reforms were intended to ensure
that the generator interconnection process is just and reasonable and
not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The

Commission required all public utility transmission providers to submit
compliance filings to adopt the requirements of the Final Rule (in
Docket No. RM17-8), as revisions to the LGIP and LGIA in their OATTs.
    In Order 864 (in Docket No. RM19-5), the Commission required public
utility transmission providers with transmission formula rates under an
OATT, a transmission owner tariff, or a rate schedule to revise those
transmission formula rates to account for changes caused by the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The Commission required public utilities
with transmission formula rates to include a mechanism in those
transmission formula rates to deduct any excess accumulated deferred
income taxes (ADIT) from or add any deficient ADIT to their rate bases.
Public utilities with transmission formula rates were also required to
incorporate a mechanism to decrease or increase their income tax
allowances by any amortized excess or deficient ADIT, respectively.
Finally, the Commission required public utilities with transmission to
update their formula rates through a compliance filing to incorporate a
new permanent worksheet into their transmission formula rates that will
annually track information related to excess or deficient ADIT.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \6\ The Commission estimates the average
annual burden and cost \7\ for FERC-516 as follows.\8\ The `annual no.
of responses per respondent' have been rounded. The estimated total
annual burden for this information collection has decreased due to the
completion of several one-time filings. The one-time filings required
in Order 845 (in Docket No. RM17-8), Order 755 (in Docket No. RM11-7),
and Order 676-G (in Docket No. RM05-05-020) are complete. Because Order
Nos. 845, 755, 676-G remain a one-time filing requirement for
transmission organizations, the burden associated with this data
collections will result only if a new transmission organization enters
FERC jurisdiction. One response for one new transmission organization
is being used as a placeholder for a possible application from such a
new transmission organization with an organized electricity market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR part 1320.
    \7\ The Commission staff estimates that the average respondent
for this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in
terms of salary plus benefits. Based on FERC's 2020 annual average
of $172,329 (for salary plus benefits), the average hourly cost is
$83/hour.
    \8\ The following currently approved one-time filings for FERC-
516 are complete.
     The one-time total burden for Electric Rate Schedules
and Tariffs in Docket No. RM17-8 was a total of 65,220 hours that
was averaged over three years (65,220 / 3 = 21,740 hours/year over
three years).
     The one-time total burden for Electric Rate Schedules
and Tariffs in Docket No. RM11-7 was a total of 5,500 hours that was
averaged over three years (5,500 / 3 = 1,833 hours/year over three
years).
     The one-time total burden for Electric Rate Schedules
and Tariffs in Docket No. RM05-05-020 was a total of 60 hours.
    \9\ If a new RTO/ISO is formed, their tariff filings would be
required by Order 845 (in Docket No. RM17-8), Order 755 (in Docket
No. RM11-7), and Order 676-G (in Docket No. RM05-05-020).

                                                  FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annual
                                                        number of       Total
              Requirements                 Number of    responses     number of    Average burden & cost per   Total annual burden hours &    Cost per
                                          respondents      per        responses             response                       cost              respondent
                                                        respondent
                                                  (1)          (2)   (1) x (2) =  (4)........................  (3) * (4) = (5)............   (5) / (1) =
                                                                             (3)                                                                     (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Rates Schedules and Tariff             1,230         3.63         4,469  103.27 hrs.; $8,571.41.....  461,514 hrs.;                   31,142.79
 Filings \10\.                                                                                $38,305,631.29.
Demand Response, RM10-17 (one-time and              6        11.33            68  114.71 hrs.; $9,520.93.....  7,800.28 hrs.; $647,423.24.    107,903.87
 monthly filings).
Frequency Regulation, RM11-7 (one-time              1            1             1  366.66 hrs.; $30,432.78....  366.66 hrs.; $30,432.78....     30,432.78
 tariff filing and system modification)
 \9\.
Variable Energy Resource Integration              142        2.113           300  29.95 hrs.; $2,485.85......  8,985 hrs.; $745,755.......      5,251.80
 Rule (RM10-11), Voluntary Burden.
Variable Energy Resource Integration              294       1.9116           562  30.91 hrs.; $2,565.53......  17,371.42 hrs.;                  4,904.18
 Rule, (RM10-11) Mandatory Burden.                                                                              $1,441,827.86.
Tariff Filings in RM05-5-020 (one-time)             1            1             1  5 hrs.; $415...............  5 hrs.; $415...............           415
 \9\.
Tariff Filings in RM05-5-022 (one-time).          132         3.63           132  6 hrs.; $498...............  792 hrs.; $65,736..........           498
Tariff Filings to Reflect Primary               1,585       0.1634           259  6 hrs.; $498...............  1,554 hrs.; $128,982.......         81.38
 Frequency Response Services in MBR
 (Final Rule in RM15-2).
Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs in             74            1            74  10 hrs.; $830..............  740 hrs.; $61,420..........           830
 RM16-6.
Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs in            132         2.66           352  4 hrs.; $322...............  1,408 hrs.; $116,864.......        885.33
 RM17-8 (ongoing).
Electric Rate Schedules and Tariffs in              1            1             1  49.41 hrs.; $4,101.03......  49.41 hrs.; $4,101.03......      4,101.03
 RM17-8 (one-time) \9\.
RM19-5, one-time and ongoing............          106         1.66           177  13.57 hrs.; $1,126.31......  2,401.89 hrs.; $199,356.87.      1,880.73
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Burden for FERC-516...........  ...........  ...........         6,396  ...........................  502,987.66 hrs.;               188,326.88
                                                                                $41,747,945.07.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: April 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08828 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1Section 182( b)( 3) specifies that EPA would approve any request from a State to reclassify to a higher classification. Technical Support Document for Detroit Ann Arbor, Michigan September 2004 1.0 Summary On July 15, 2004 Steven Chester, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ) Director and Governor's designee, submitted a request to reclassify Detroit Ann Arbor ( Southeast Michigan) from Moderate ozone nonattainment to Marginal ozone nonattainment. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments ( SEMCoG) is the lead local planning agency for the Detroit Ann Arbor area. MDEQ and SEMCoG worked jointly to prepare the reclassification request. A subsequent submittal supplying additional information was made on September 10, 2004.

The petition is based on the area's Moderate design value of 97 ppb which can be rounded to 5% of the maximum Marginal design value as allowed by the Clean Air Act. Also, MDEQ and SEMCoG have committed to identify and implement control measures that will help the Detroit Ann Arbor reach attainment by the Marginal deadline of June 15, 2007.

EPA has reviewed this request and believes the area should be reclassified as Marginal ozone nonattainment.

2.0 Introduction This section describes the statutory provisions and EPA guidance regarding reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 181( a)( 4) and 182( b)( 3) of the Clean Air Act provide that areas may be reclassified under certain circumstances. This technical support document addresses the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) and a specific request for reclassifications received by the State of Michigan. The EPA has not received any requests for reclassification under section 182( b)( 3) for the 8 hour ozone standard. 1 Under section 181( a)( 4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified " if an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based." In the April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that an area with a moderate design value of 96 ppb ( or less) would be eligible to request a bump down because five percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a marginal  2

design value.

In their petition, Michigan requested EPA to use a rounding convention that would allow the " 5 percent" calculation to be a factor of up to 5.49 percent. After reviewing the methodology for handling of percentages in EPA's " Guideline on Data Handling Conventions For the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS" ( December 1998), EPA believes values up to 5.4% are acceptable for the bump down calculation. The Guideline indicates percent values are rounded up for the purpose of determining data completeness ( specifically the Guideline states, 74.5% is 75% and 89.5 is 90%). Since there is nothing in the Guideline to suggest this percentage rounding convention is inappropriate for other calculations involving ambient air quality data, EPA believes it is acceptable for the bump down calculation. Using 0.054 as 5% and 97 ppb ( moderate) as the design value, then ( 0.054) * 97 = 91.8, which is a marginal value. Thus, the area is eligible to request a bump down.

The EPA previously described criteria to implement the section 181( a)( 4) provisions in a final rule designating and classifying areas published on November 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 56698). As stated in that notice, the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) set out general criteria and grant the Administrator broad discretion in making or determining not to make, a reclassification. As part of the 1991 action, EPA developed more specific criteria to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reclassify a particular area. The EPA also described these criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. The general and specific criteria are as follows:

General: The EPA may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Request by State: The EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to bump down areas on EPA's own initiative. Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State to submit a request for a bump down. A Tribe may also submit such a request and, in the case of a multi state nonattainment area, all affected States must submit the reclassification request.

Discontinuity: A five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas. In particular, in light of the areawide nature of ozone formation, a reclassification should  3

not create a " donut hole" where an area of one classification is surrounded by areas of higher classification.

Attainment: Evidence should be available that the proposed area would be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification in the case of a bump down.

Emissions reductions: Evidence should be available that the area would be very likely to achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary in order to attain in the shorter time period for a bump down.

Trends: Near and long term trends in emissions and air quality should support a reclassification. Historical air quality data should indicate substantial air quality improvement for a bump down. Growth projections and emission trends should support a bump down. In addition, we will consider whether vehicle miles traveled and other indicators of emissions are increasing at higher than normal rates.

Years of data: For the 8 hour ozone standard, the 2001 2003 period is central to determining classification. Data from 2004 may be used to corroborate a bump down request but should not be the sole foundation for the bump down request.

Limitations on Bump Downs An area may only be reclassified to the next lower classification. An area cannot present data from other years as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification. In addition, section 181( a)( 4) does not permit moving areas from subpart 2 into subpart 1.

In 1991, EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement ( a request by the State to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria and did not violate any of the criteria ( emissions, reductions, trends, etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on designations and classifications, we stated our intention to use this method and these criteria once again to evaluate reclassification requests under section 181( a)( 4), with minor changes described in that notice. In that notice we also described how we applied these criteria in 1991. For additional information, see section 5, " Areas requesting a 5% downshift per § 181( a)( 4) and EPA's response to those requests," of the Technical Support Document, October 1991, for the 1991 rule. [ Docket A 90 42A.]  4

EPA is not basing this reclassification determination on consideration of whether the nonattainment area being reclassified does or does not cause any pollution transport. The EPA is presently addressing ozone pollution transport issues throughout the eastern part of the United States under other Clean Air Act provisions. Specifically, EPA has proposed a determination that emissions from certain states contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment for ozone under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D) through the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The CAIR proposal, published in a Federal Register notice dated January 30, 2004, would require upwind States to eliminate emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States. 69 Fed. Reg. 454566. The EPA previously issued the NOx SIP call ( 63 FR 57356) to address interstate ozone transport. In the event of any intrastate transport issue, states have the obligation to develop attainment SIPs for each area that show timely attainment, and can address any intrastate transport issues in that context.

The April 30, 2004 notice invited States to submit the reclassification requests within 30 days of the effective date of the designations and classifications. The effective date was June 15 which means that reclassification requests were to be submitted by July 15, 2004. This relatively short time frame is necessary because section 181( a)( 4) only authorizes the Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification, September 15, 2004.

3.0 Background EPA designated this area as Moderate due to high 8 hour values ( design value is 97 ppb) and 1 hour values ( 126 ppb).

4.0 Reclassification Request by State The State argues that the Detroit Ann Arbor area should receive a reclassification from Moderate to Marginal.

In their submittal, MDEQ points out that the ozone episode that occurred in June 2003 was an anomalous event that drastically affected the 2001 2003 design value. But for the irregularly high values from one day, June 25, 2003, the design value for 2001 2003 would be 92 ppb instead of 97 ppb.

The demonstration is based, in part, on a commitment from MDEQ and SEMCoG to augment already existing control programs to obtain emission reductions necessary to reach attainment by the Marginal classification attainment deadline of June 15, 2007. MDEQ and  5

SEMCoG have committed to a schedule that will identify appropriate controls by June 2005. These phase in of the selected control measures will be implemented in the Detroit Ann Arbor area beginning in 2006.

5.0 EPA Review of the Reclassification Request 5.1 Request by State The request was submitted by Steven Chester, Director of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The MDEQ Director is the Governor's designee.

5.2 Discontinuity If the Detroit Ann Arbor area is reclassified from Moderate to Marginal, this will not result in a discontinuity or " donut hole." All adjacent nonattainment areas to the Detroit Ann Arbor area are Subpart 1 nonattainment.

5.3 Attainment The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium ( LADCo) used modeling results performed to support the 1 hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan area and applied 8 hour ozone metrics. This modeling conducted by LADCo indicates that the Detroit Ann Arbor area may be very close to attainment ( 85 ppb) in 2007. However, as noted in Michigan's petition, the LADCO subregional modeling was designed to assess 1 hour ozone and, as such, there are some limitations with using it to assess 8 hour ozone. For example, the episodes and modeling domain were selected for the Lake Michigan region and may not accurately represent other cities in the modeling domain, such as Detroit. On the other hand, it should be noted that three of the four modeled episodes are representative periods for high 8 hour ozone and basecase model performance for 8 hour ozone was found to be as good as ( or better than) that for 1 hour ozone ( page 7 of the IDEM & LADCo July 2004 " Photochemical Modeling Analysis of 8 Hour Ozone for LaPorte County").

Additional, regional scale, CAIR modeling ( January 2004 proposal) indicates the area will be in attainment ( 84 ppb) by 2010. The CAIR modeling, however, was not designed to provide results for years prior to 2010.

In summary, EPA believes the LADCo and CAIR modeling analyses are not conclusive with respect to the area's attainment status in 2007. Although neither analysis is as comprehensive an  6

assessment as would be expected with a SIP attainment demonstration, they do provide support for a decision to reclassify the area. Both modeling analyses indicate air quality will be improving over the next several years. Further decreases can be expected once MDEQ and SEMCoG have selected control measures for the area and these measures are implemented.

5.4 Emissions Reductions Emissions reductions are already occurring in various sectors throughout the area.

On Road Mobile Sources: VOC and NOx will decline by 40% and 37%, respectively, between 2002 and 2007, even after accounting for increasing levels of travel. This trend will continue to 2010, reaching reductions of 54% for both pollutants.

Point Sources: Emissions of NOx from implementation of the SIP Call between 2000 and 2007 are estimated to be 288 tons per day.

Additionally, MDEQ and SEMCoG have committed to evaluating a list of measures including:

° vehicle inspection and maintenance ° lower emitting fuels ° degreasing ° architectural and industrial maintenance coatings ° consumer/ commercial products ° tighter VOC RACT rules ° gas can replacement After an analysis, MDEQ and SEMCoG will choose what measures will be implemented and the phase in of these controls will begin in 2006. The addition of these controls to the already occurring reductions will help the area reach attainment by the Marginal deadline of June 15, 2007.

5.5 Trends While a long term trends analysis for the Detroit Ann Arbor area does not show a declining trend in ozone values, that can be attributed to the abnormally high values experienced in the area in June 2003. The maximum concentration in 2004, to date, is 83 ppb, which may mark the beginning of at least a short term air quality trend downward. It can be expected that ozone values will decrease due to the implementation of various rules such as the NOx SIP Call, Tier II/ Low Sulfur, Heavy Duty Diesel Engine  7

2Engine manufacturers will have flexibility to meet the new standards through a phase in approach between 2007 and 2010. The fuel provision will go into effect in June 2006 and will be phased in through 2009 standards/ low sulfur diesel, 2 and other national rules. This decrease will only be accentuated by the additional controls that have been committed to by the State and local governments.

5.6 Years of Data The design value being used a 2001 2003 value and it is 97 ppb.

5.7 Additional Information MDEQ and SEMCoG have committed to a schedule that expedites review and selection of control measures sooner than required under any other classification scenario, whether Moderate, Marginal or Subpart 1. The process for choosing appropriate control measures for the area will be completed by June 2005. MDEQ and SEMCoG have also committed to begin the phase in of these controls in 2006.

5.8 Conclusions The following factors support the request for downward revision to the 8 hour ozone classification for Detroit Ann Arbor area: the design value of 97 ppb meets our criteria to qualify for consideration of bump down, local and regional modeling analyses indicate air quality will be improving over the next several years, regional and national regulations will continue this trend in lowering ambient ozone values, and the State and local agencies responsible for air quality planning have committed to an aggressive schedule to identify and implement controls that will help the area attain by 2007.

5.9 EPA Action The request meets certain criteria EPA established ( request, discontinuity, emission reductions, and data) and does not violate any of the criteria ( attainment and trends). Therefore, EPA is approving the reclassification request for the Detroit Ann Arbor area.

6.0 Additional Information Additional information regarding the bump down request for this area is contained in the docket for this action. This  8

information includes the State request, supporting documents, and other necessary material.