51264 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

8 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

9 7 U.S.C.19(a). 

1The term LMP represents ‘‘locational marginal 

price,’’ which represents the additional cost 

associated with producing an incremental amount 

of electricity. LMPs account for generation costs, 

congestion along the transmission lines, and loss. 

liquidity, trading in the ICE MXO 

contract averaged nearly 1,000 contracts 

on a daily basis, with more than six 

separate transactions each day. In 

addition, the open interest in the subject 

contract was large. In regard to material 

price reference, while it did not specify 

or otherwise reference the particular 

contract under review, the ECM Study 

stated that, in general, market 

participants view the ICE as a price 

discovery market for certain electricity 

contracts. Power contracts based on 

actively-traded hubs are transacted 

heavily on the ICE’s electronic trading 

platform, with the remainder being 

completed over-the-counter and 

potentially submitted for clearing by 

voice brokers. In addition, the ICE sells 

its price data to market participants in 

a number of different packages which 

vary in terms of the hubs covered, time 

periods, and whether the data are daily 

only or historical. For example, the ICE 

offers ‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data 

packages with access to all price data or 

just 12, 24, 36, or 48 months of 

historical data. 

III. Request for Comment 

In evaluating whether an ECM’s 

agreement, contract, or transaction 

performs a significant price discovery 

function, section 2(h)(7) of the CEA 

directs the Commission to consider, as 

appropriate, four specific criteria: price 

linkage, arbitrage, material price 

reference, and material liquidity. As it 

explained in Appendix A to the Part 36 

rules, the Commission, in making SPDC 

determinations, will apply and weigh 

each factor, as appropriate, to the 

specific contract and circumstances 

under consideration. 

As part of its evaluation, the 

Commission will consider the written 

data, views, and arguments from any 

ECM that lists the potential SPDC and 

from any other interested parties. 

Accordingly, the Commission requests 

comment on whether the ICE’s MDC, 

MPD, OMC, and/or MXO contracts 

perform significant price discovery 

functions. Commenters’ attention is 

directed particularly to Appendix A of 

the Commission’s Part 36 rules for a 

detailed discussion of the factors 

relevant to a SPDC determination. The 

Commission notes that comments which 

analyze the contracts in terms of these 

factors will be especially helpful to the 

determination process. In order to 

determine the relevance of comments 

received, the Commission requests that 

commenters explain in what capacity 

are they knowledgeable about one or 

several of the subject contracts. 

Moreover, because four contracts are 

included in this notice, it is important 

that commenters identify to which 

contract or contracts their comments 

apply. 

IV. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) 8 imposes certain requirements 

on federal agencies, including the 

Commission, in connection with their 

conducting or sponsoring any collection 

of information, as defined by the PRA. 

Certain provisions of final Commission 

rule 36.3 impose new regulatory and 

reporting requirements on ECMs, 

resulting in information collection 

requirements within the meaning of the 

PRA; OMB previously has approved and 

assigned OMB control number 3038– 

0060 to this collection of information. 

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 9 requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its actions before issuing an 

order under the Act. By its terms, 

section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of such an order or to determine 

whether the benefits of such an order 

outweigh its costs; rather, it requires 

that the Commission ‘‘consider’’ the 

costs and benefits of its action. Section 

15(a) further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall be evaluated in light of 

five broad areas of market and public 

concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. 

The bulk of the costs imposed by the 

requirements of Commission Rule 36.3 

relate to significant and increased 

information-submission and reporting 

requirements adopted in response to the 

Reauthorization Act’s directive that the 

Commission take an active role in 

determining whether contracts listed by 

ECMs qualify as SPDCs. The enhanced 

requirements for ECMs will permit the 

Commission to acquire the information 

it needs to discharge its newlymandated responsibilities and to ensure 

that ECMs with SPDCs are identified as 

entities with the elevated status of 

registered entity under the CEA and are 

in compliance with the statutory terms 

of the core principles of section 

2(h)(7)(C) of the Act. The primary 

benefit to the public is to enable the 

Commission to discharge its statutory 

obligation to monitor for the presence of 

SPDCs and extend its oversight to the 

trading of SPDCs. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

22, 2009 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23966 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Intent, Pursuant to the 

Authority in Section 2(h)(7) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and 

Commission Rule 36.3(c)(3), To 

Undertake a Determination Whether 

the SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak Contract; SP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Peak Daily Contract; SP– 

15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP Off-Peak 

Daily Contract; SP–15 Financial Swap 

Real Time LMP—Peak Daily Contract; 

SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP OffPeak Contract; NP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Peak Daily Contract; and 

NP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP OffPeak Daily Contract, Offered for 

Trading on the 

IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., 

Perform Significant Price Discovery 

Functions 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of action and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) is undertaking a review 

to determine whether the SP–15 

Financial Day-Ahead LMP 1 Peak 

(‘‘SPM’’) contract; SP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Peak Daily (‘‘SDP’’) 

contract; SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead 

LMP Off-Peak Daily (‘‘SQP’’) contract; 

SP–15 Financial Swap Real Time 

LMP—Peak Daily (‘‘SRP’’) contract; SP– 

15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP Off-Peak 

Contract (‘‘OFP’’); NP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Peak Daily (‘‘DPN’’) 

contract; and NP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Off-Peak Daily (‘‘UNP’’) 

contract, offered for trading on the 

IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (‘‘ICE’’), 

an exempt commercial market (‘‘ECM’’) 

under Sections 2(h)(3)–(5) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or the 

‘‘Act’’), perform significant price 

discovery functions. Authority for this 

action is found in section 2(h)(7) of the 

CEA and Commission rule 36.3(c) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51265 

2 74 FR 12178 (Mar. 23, 2009); these rules became 

effective on April 22, 2009. 

3The Commission may commence this process on 

its own initiative or on the basis of information 

provided to it by an ECM pursuant to the 

notification provisions of Commission rule 

36.3(c)(2). 4Where appropriate, the Commission may choose 

to interview market participants regarding their 

impressions of a particular contract. Further, while 

they may not provide direct evidentiary support 

with respect to a particular contract, the 

Commission may rely for background and context 

on resources such as its October 2007 Report on the 

Oversight of Trading on Regulated Futures 

Exchanges and Exempt Commercial Markets (‘‘ECM 

Study’’). http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/

public/@newsroom/documents/file/pr5403–07_

ecmreport.pdf. 

5 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7)(C). 

6The acronym ‘‘ISO’’ signifies ‘‘Independent 

System Operator,’’ which is an entity that 

coordinates electricity generation and transmission, 

as well as the grid reliability, throughout its service 

area. 

promulgated thereunder. In connection 

with this evaluation, the Commission 

invites comment from interested parties. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• E-mail: secretary@cftc.gov. Include 

ICE SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak (SPM) Contract; ICE SP–15 

Financial Day-Ahead LMP Peak Daily 

(SDP) Contract; ICE SP–15 Financial 

Day-Ahead LMP Off-Peak Daily (SQP) 

Contract; ICE SP–15 Financial Swap 

Real Time LMP—Peak Daily (SRP) 

Contract; ICE SP–15 Financial DayAhead LMP Off-Peak (OFP) Contract; 

ICE NP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak Daily (DPN) Contract; and/or ICE 

NP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP OffPeak Daily (UNP) Contract in the subject 

line of the message, depending on the 

subject contract(s) to which the 

comments apply. 

• Fax: (202) 418–5521. 

• Mail: Send to David A. Stawick, 

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

• Courier: Same as mail above. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.CFTC.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory K. Price, Industry Economist, 

Division of Market Oversight, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Telephone: (202) 418–5515. Email: gprice@cftc.gov; or Susan Nathan, 

Senior Special Counsel, Division of 

Market Oversight, same address. 

Telephone: (202) 418–5133. E-mail: 

snathan@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On March 16, 2009, the CFTC 

promulgated final rules implementing 

provisions of the CFTC Reauthorization 

Act of 2008 (‘‘Reauthorization Act’’) 2

which subjects ECMs with significant 

price discovery contracts (‘‘SPDCs’’) to 

self-regulatory and reporting 

requirements, as well as certain 

Commission oversight authorities, with 

respect to those contracts. Among other 

things, these rules and rule amendments 

revise the information-submission 

requirements applicable to ECMs, 

establish procedures and standards by 

which the Commission will determine 

whether an ECM contract performs a 

significant price discovery function, and 

provide guidance with respect to 

compliance with nine statutory core 

principles applicable to ECMs with 

SPDCs. These rules became effective on 

April 22, 2009. 

In determining whether an ECM’s 

contract is or is not an SPDC, the 

Commission will consider the contract’s 

material liquidity, price linkage to other 

contracts, potential for arbitrage with 

other contracts traded on designated 

contract markets or derivatives 

transaction execution facilities, use of 

the ECM contract’s prices to execute or 

settle other transactions, and other 

factors. 

In order to facilitate the Commission’s 

identification of possible SPDCs, 

Commission rule 36.3(c)(2) requires that 

an ECM operating in reliance on section 

2(h)(3) promptly notify the Commission 

and provide supporting information or 

data concerning any contract: (i) That 

averaged five trades per day or more 

over the most recent calendar quarter; 

and (ii) (A) for which the ECM sells 

price information regarding the contract 

to market participants or industry 

publications; or (B) whose daily closing 

or settlement prices on 95 percent or 

more of the days in the most recent 

quarter were within 2.5 percent of the 

contemporaneously determined closing, 

settlement, or other daily price of 

another agreement. 

II. Determination of an SPDC 

A. The SPDC Determination Process 

Commission rule 36.3(c)(3) 

establishes the procedures by which the 

Commission makes and announces its 

determination on whether a specific 

ECM contract serves a significant price 

discovery function. Under those 

procedures, the Commission will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

that it intends to undertake a 

determination as to whether the 

specified agreement, contract, or 

transaction performs a significant price 

discovery function and to receive 

written data, views, and arguments 

relevant to its determination from the 

ECM and other interested persons.3

After prompt consideration of all 

relevant information,4 the Commission 

will, within a reasonable period of time 

after the close of the comment period, 

issue an order explaining its 

determination. Following the issuance 

of an order by the Commission that the 

ECM executes or trades an agreement, 

contract, or transaction that performs a 

significant price discovery function, the 

ECM must demonstrate, with respect to 

that agreement, contract, or transaction, 

compliance with the core principles 

under section 2(h)(7)(C) of the CEA 5

and the applicable provisions of part 36. 

If the Commission’s order represents the 

first time it has determined that one of 

the ECM’s contracts performs a 

significant price discovery function, the 

ECM must submit a written 

demonstration of its compliance with 

the core principles within 90 calendar 

days of the date of the Commission’s 

order. For each subsequent 

determination by the Commission that 

the ECM has an additional SPDC, the 

ECM must submit a written 

demonstration of its compliance with 

the core principles within 30 calendar 

days of the Commission’s order. 

B. SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak Contract 

The SPM contract is cash settled 

based on the arithmetic average of peakhour, day-ahead LMPs posted by the 

California ISO 6 (CAISO) for the SP–15 

Existing Zone Generation (EZ Gen) Hub 

for all peak hours in the calendar 

month. The LMPs are derived from 

power trades that result in physical 

delivery. The size of the SPM contract 

is 400 megawatt hours (‘‘MWh’’), and 

the unit of trading is the number of peak 

days in the contract month multiplied 

by 400 MWh (one 400–MWh increment 

is referred to as a lot). In other words, 

a minimum of 400 MWh must be 

delivered each peak day of the month, 

and trading is restricted to multiples of 

the number of peak days in the contract 

month. The SPM contract is listed for 

up to 110 months including four entire 

calendar years. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on July 27, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

ICE reported that, with respect to its 

SPM contract, 3,235 separate 

transactions occurred in the second 

quarter of 2009, resulting in a daily 

average of 50.5 trades. During the same 

period, the SPM contract had a total 

trading volume of 143,717 contracts, 

and an average daily trading volume of 

2,245.6 contracts. Moreover, the open 

interest in the contract as of June 30, 

2009, was 460,583 contracts. 

It appears that the SPM contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the SPM contract 

averaged more than 2,000 contracts on 

a daily basis, with approximately 50 

separate transactions each day. In 

addition, the open interest in the subject 

contract was extremely large. In regard 

to material price reference, while it did 

not specifically address the power 

contracts under review, the ECM Study 

stated that, in general, market 

participants view the ICE as a price 

discovery market for certain electricity 

contracts. Specifically, power contracts 

based on actively-traded hubs are 

transacted heavily on the ICE’s 

electronic trading platform, with the 

remainder being traded over-the-counter 

through voice brokers and potentially 

submitted for clearing. In addition, the 

ICE sells its price data to market 

participants in a number of different 

packages which vary in terms of the 

hubs covered, time periods, and 

whether the data are daily only or 

historical. For example, the ICE offers 

‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data packages 

with access to all price data or just 12, 

24, 36, or 48 months of historical data. 

C. SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak Daily Contract 

The SDP contract is cash settled based 

on the arithmetic average of peak-hour, 

day-ahead LMPs posted by the CAISO 

for the SP–15 EZ Gen Hub for all peak 

hours on the day prior to generation. 

The LMPs are derived from power 

trades that result in physical delivery. 

The size of the SDP contract is 400 

MWh. The SDP contract is listed for 45 

consecutive calendar days. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on July 27, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 

ICE reported that, with respect to its 

SDP contract, 6,159 separate 

transactions occurred in the second 

quarter of 2009, resulting in a daily 

average of 96.2 trades. During the same 

period, the SDP contract had a total 

trading volume of 23,365 contracts and 

an average trading volume of 365.1 

contracts per day. Moreover, the open 

interest in the contract as of June 30, 

2009, was 3,387 contracts. 

It appears that the SDP contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE SDP 

contract averaged more than 350 

contracts on a daily basis, with more 

than 95 separate transactions each day. 

In addition, the open interest in the 

subject contract was large. In regard to 

material price reference, while it did not 

specifically address the power contracts 

under review, the ECM Study stated 

that, in general, market participants 

view the ICE as a price discovery market 

for certain electricity contracts. 

Specifically, power contracts based on 

actively-traded hubs are transacted 

heavily on the ICE’s electronic trading 

platform, with the remainder being 

traded over-the-counter through voice 

brokers and potentially submitted for 

clearing. In addition, the ICE sells its 

price data to market participants in a 

number of different packages which 

vary in terms of the hubs covered, time 

periods, and whether the data are daily 

only or historical. For example, the ICE 

offers ‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data 

packages with access to all price data or 

just 12, 24, 36, or 48 months of 

historical data. 

D. SP–15 Financial Swap Real Time 

LMP—Peak Daily 

The SRP contract is cash settled based 

on the arithmetic average of hourly, 

real-time LMPs posted by the CAISO for 

the SP–15 EZ Gen Hub for all peak 

hours in the day of the electricity 

generation. The LMPs are derived from 

power trades that result in physical 

delivery. The size of the SRP contract is 

400 MWh, and the unit of trading is any 

multiple of 400 MWh. The SRP contract 

is listed for 45 consecutive calendar 

days. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on July 27, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 

ICE reported that, with respect to its 

SRP contract, 826 separate transactions 

occurred in the second quarter of 2009, 

resulting in a daily average of 12.9 

trades. During the same period, the SRP 

contract had a total trading volume of 

1,014 contracts and an average trading 

volume of 15.8 contracts per day. 

Moreover, the open interest in the 

contract as of June 30, 2009, was 143 

contracts. 

It appears that the SRP contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE SRP 

contract averaged more than 15 

contracts on a daily basis, with more 

than 12 separate transactions each day. 

In addition, the open interest in the 

subject contract was substantial. In 

regard to material price reference, while 

it did not specifically address the power 

contracts under review, the ECM Study 

stated that, in general, market 

participants view the ICE as a price 

discovery market for certain electricity 

contracts. Specifically, power contracts 

based on actively-traded hubs are 

transacted heavily on the ICE’s 

electronic trading platform, with the 

remainder being traded over-the-counter 

through voice brokers and potentially 

submitted for clearing. In addition, the 

ICE sells its price data to market 

participants in a number of different 

packages which vary in terms of the 

hubs covered, time periods, and 

whether the data are daily only or 

historical. For example, the ICE offers 

‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data packages 

with access to all price data or just 12, 

24, 36, or 48 months of historical data. 

E. SP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP OffPeak Contract 

The OFP contract is cash settled based 

on the arithmetic average of off-peakhour, day-ahead LMPs posted by the 

CAISO for the SP–15 Existing Zone 

Generation (EZ Gen) Hub for all off-peak 

hours in the calendar month. The LMPs 

are derived from power trades that 

result in physical delivery. The size of 

the OFP contract is 25 megawatt hours 

(‘‘MWh’’), and the unit of trading is any 

multiple of 25 MWh. That is, a 

minimum of 25 MWh must be delivered 

each off-peak day of the month, and 

trading is restricted to multiples of the 

number of off-peak days in the contract 

month. The OFP contract is listed for up 

to 86 months including three entire 

calendar years. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on April 30, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 

ICE reported that its OFP contract met 

the minimum five trades or more per 

day threshold in the first quarter of 

2009. During that period, the OFP 

contract had a total trading volume of 

1,159,586 contracts and the open 

interest as of March 31, 2009, was 3,259 

contracts. 

It appears that the ICE OFP contract 

may satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, the OFP contract met the 

minimum trading threshold with a total 

trading volume of over one million 

contracts in the first quarter of 2009. In 

addition, the ending open interest was 

sizeable. In regard to material price 

reference, while it did not specifically 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51267 

7 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

8 7 U.S.C.19(a). 

address the power contracts under 

review, the ECM Study stated that, in 

general, market participants view the 

ICE as a price discovery market for 

certain electricity contracts. 

Specifically, power contracts based on 

actively-traded hubs are transacted 

heavily on the ICE’s electronic trading 

platform, with the remainder being 

traded over-the-counter through voice 

brokers and potentially submitted for 

clearing. In addition, the ICE sells its 

price data to market participants in a 

number of different packages which 

vary in terms of the hubs covered, time 

periods, and whether the data are daily 

only or historical. For example, the ICE 

offers ‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data 

packages with access to all price data or 

just 12, 24, 36, or 48 months of 

historical data. 

F. NP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Peak Daily Contract 

The DPN contract is cash settled 

based on the arithmetic average of the 

peak-hour, day-ahead LMPs posted by 

the CAISO for the NP–15 EZ Gen Hub 

for peak hours on the day prior to 

generation. The LMPs are derived from 

power trades that result in physical 

delivery. The size of the DPN contract 

is 400 MWh. The DPN contract is listed 

for 45 consecutive calendar days. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on July 27, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 

ICE reported that, with respect to its 

DPN contract, 2,782 separate 

transactions occurred in the second 

quarter of 2009, resulting in a daily 

average of 43.5 trades. During the same 

period, the DPN contract had a total 

trading volume of 5,766 contracts and 

an average trading volume of 90.1 

contracts per day. Moreover, the open 

interest in the contract as of June 30, 

2009, was 947 contracts. 

It appears that the DPN contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE DPN 

contract averaged approximately 90 

contracts on a daily basis, with more 

than 40 separate transactions each day. 

In addition, the open interest in the 

subject contract was significant. In 

regard to material price reference, while 

it did not specifically address the power 

contracts under review, the ECM Study 

stated that, in general, market 

participants view the ICE as a price 

discovery market for certain electricity 

contracts. Specifically, power contracts 

based on actively-traded hubs are 

transacted heavily on the ICE’s 

electronic trading platform, with the 

remainder being traded over-the-counter 

through voice brokers and potentially 

submitted for clearing. In addition, the 

ICE sells its price data to market 

participants in a number of different 

packages which vary in terms of the 

hubs covered, time periods, and 

whether the data are daily only or 

historical. For example, the ICE offers 

‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data packages 

with access to all price data or just 12, 

24, 36, or 48 months of historical data. 

G. NP–15 Financial Day-Ahead LMP 

Off-Peak Daily Contract 

The UNP contract is cash settled 

based on the arithmetic average of the 

off-peak-hour, day-ahead LMPs posted 

by the CAISO for the NP–15 EZ Gen 

Hub for off-peak hours on the day prior 

to generation. The LMPs are derived 

from power trades that result in 

physical delivery. The size of the UNP 

contract is 25 MWh. The UNP contract 

is listed for 45 consecutive calendar 

days. 

Based upon a required quarterly 

notification filed on July 27, 2009 

(mandatory under Rule 36.3(c)(2)), the 

ICE reported that, with respect to its 

UNP contract, 1,925 separate 

transactions occurred in the second 

quarter of 2009, resulting in a daily 

average of 30.1 trades. During the same 

period, the UNP contract had a total 

trading volume of 36,936 contracts and 

an average trading volume of 577.1 

contracts per day. Moreover, the open 

interest in the contract as of June 30, 

2009, was 4,152 contracts. 

It appears that the UNP contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE UNP 

contract averaged more than 575 

contracts on a daily basis, with more 

than 30 separate transactions each day. 

In addition, the open interest in the 

subject contract was large. In regard to 

material price reference, while it did not 

specifically address the power contracts 

under review, the ECM Study stated 

that, in general, market participants 

view the ICE as a price discovery market 

for certain electricity contracts. 

Specifically, power contracts based on 

actively-traded hubs are transacted 

heavily on the ICE’s electronic trading 

platform, with the remainder being 

traded over-the-counter through voice 

brokers and potentially submitted for 

clearing. In addition, the ICE sells its 

price data to market participants in a 

number of different packages which 

vary in terms of the hubs covered, time 

periods, and whether the data are daily 

only or historical. For example, the ICE 

offers ‘‘West Power End of Day’’ data 

packages with access to all price data or 

just 12, 24, 36, or 48 months of 

historical data. 

III. Request for Comment 

In evaluating whether an ECM’s 

agreement, contract, or transaction 

performs a significant price discovery 

function, section 2(h)(7) of the CEA 

directs the Commission to consider, as 

appropriate, four specific criteria: price 

linkage, arbitrage, material price 

reference, and material liquidity. As it 

explained in Appendix A to the part 36 

rules, the Commission, in making SPDC 

determinations, will apply and weigh 

each factor, as appropriate, to the 

specific contract and circumstances 

under consideration. 

As part of its evaluation, the 

Commission will consider the written 

data, views, and arguments from any 

ECM that lists the potential SPDC and 

from any other interested parties. 

Accordingly, the Commission requests 

comment on whether the subject 

contracts perform significant price 

discovery functions. Commenters’ 

attention is directed particularly to 

Appendix A of the Commission’s part 

36 rules for a detailed discussion of the 

factors relevant to an SPDC 

determination. The Commission notes 

that comments which analyze the 

contracts in terms of these factors will 

be especially helpful to the 

determination process. In order to 

determine the relevance of comments 

received, the Commission requests that 

commenters explain in what capacity 

are they knowledgeable about the 

subject contracts. Moreover, 

commenters are requested to identify 

the contract or contracts to which their 

comments apply. 

IV. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) 7 imposes certain requirements 

on Federal agencies, including the 

Commission, in connection with their 

conducting or sponsoring any collection 

of information, as defined by the PRA. 

Certain provisions of final Commission 

rule 36.3 impose new regulatory and 

reporting requirements on ECMs, 

resulting in information collection 

requirements within the meaning of the 

PRA; OMB previously has approved and 

assigned OMB control number 3038– 

0060 to this collection of information. 

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 8 requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51268 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

benefits of its actions before issuing an 

order under the Act. By its terms, 

section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of such an order or to determine 

whether the benefits of such an order 

outweigh its costs; rather, it requires 

that the Commission ‘‘consider’’ the 

costs and benefits of its action. Section 

15(a) further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall be evaluated in light of 

five broad areas of market and public 

concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. 

The bulk of the costs imposed by the 

requirements of Commission Rule 36.3 

relate to significant and increased 

information-submission and reporting 

requirements adopted in response to the 

Reauthorization Act’s directive that the 

Commission take an active role in 

determining whether contracts listed by 

ECMs qualify as SPDCs. The enhanced 

requirements for ECMs will permit the 

Commission to acquire the information 

it needs to discharge its newlymandated responsibilities and to ensure 

that ECMs with SPDCs are identified as 

entities with the elevated status of 

registered entity under the CEA and are 

in compliance with the statutory terms 

of the core principles of section 

2(h)(7)(C) of the Act. The primary 

benefit to the public is to enable the 

Commission to discharge its statutory 

obligation to monitor for the presence of 

SPDCs and extend its oversight to the 

trading of SPDCs. 

Issued in Washington, DC on 

September 22, 2009 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23965 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Correction notice. 

SUMMARY: On August 27, 2009, the 

Department of Education published a 

comment period notice in the Federal 

Register (Page 43689, Column 1) seeking 

public comment for an information 

collection entitled, ‘‘Federal Pell Grant 

Program—Maximum Pell Grant to 

Children of Soldiers’’. We are now 

withdrawing this information collection 

as we can obtain this information 

through other means, and therefore do 

not collect this data from the public. 

The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, hereby issues a 

correction notice as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Dated: September 30, 2009. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–24042 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Science 

Notice of Renewal of the DOE/NSF 

Nuclear Science Advisory Committee 

Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) and in accordance with 41of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Section 

102–3.65, and following consultation 

with the Committee Management 

Secretariat, General Services 

Administration, notice is hereby given 

that the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science 

Advisory Committee has been renewed 

for a two-year period. 

The Committee will provide advice to 

the Associate Director of the Office of 

Science for Nuclear Physics (DOE), and 

the Assistant Director, Directorate for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

(NSF), on scientific priorities within the 

field of basic nuclear science research. 

The Under Secretary for Science has 

determined that renewal of the 

Committee is essential to conduct 

business of the Department of Energy 

and the National Science Foundation 

and is in the public interest in 

connection with the performance duties 

imposed by law upon the Department of 

Energy. The Committee will continue to 

operate in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the Department of 

Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), and implementing regulations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rachel Samuel at (202) 586–3279. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 1, 

2009. 

Eric Nicoll, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–24024 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2594–013] 

Northern Lights, Inc.; Notice of 

Application Accepted for Filing, 

Soliciting Motions To Intervene and 

Protests, Ready for Environmental 

Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, 

Recommendations, Preliminary Terms 

and Conditions, and Preliminary 

Fishway Prescriptions 

September 29, 2009. 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Major License. 

b. Project No.: 2594–013. 

c. Date filed: July 17, 2009. 

d. Applicant: Northern Lights, Inc. 

(NLI). 

e. Name of Project: Lake Creek 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: The existing project is 

located on Lake Creek in Lincoln 

County, Montana, near the City of Troy. 

The project does not affect Federal 

lands. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r) . 

h. Applicant Contact: Mark Contor, 

Operations Manager, Northern Lights, 

Inc., P.O. Box 269, 421 Chevy Street, 

Sagle, ID 83860; Telephone (800) 326– 

9594 ext. 134 

i. FERC Contact: Shana Murray, 

Telephone (202) 502–8333, and e-mail 

shana.murray@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing motions to 

intervene and protests, comments, 

recommendations, preliminary terms 

and conditions, and preliminary 

fishway prescriptions is 60 days from 

the issuance of this notice; reply 

comments are due 105 days from the 

issuance date of this notice. 

All documents (original and eight 

copies) should be filed with: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

require all intervenors filing documents 

with the Commission to serve a copy of 

that document on each person on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervenor files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. 

Motions to intervene, protests, 

comments, recommendations, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES