Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51261 

• Consistency of the applicant’s goals 

and objectives with the stated scope of 

the mission. 

• Past or current export activity or 

ability to initiate and sustain immediate 

export activities. 

Referrals from political organizations 

and any documents containing 

references to partisan political activities 

(including political contributions) will 

be removed from an applicant’s 

submission and not considered during 

the selection process. 

VII. Timeframe for Recruitment and 

Applications 

Mission recruitment will be 

conducted in an open and public 

manner. Outreach will include posting 

on the Commerce Department trade 

mission calendar (http:// 

www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html) and 

other Internet Web sites, press releases 

to general and trade media, direct mail, 

broadcast fax, notices by industry trade 

associations and other multiplier 

groups, and publicity at industry 

meetings, symposia, conferences, and 

trade shows. The International Trade 

Administration will explore and 

welcome outreach assistance from other 

interested organizations, including other 

U.S. Government agencies. 

Recruitment for the mission will 

begin immediately and conclude 

January 15, 2010. Applications will be 

available online on the mission Web site 

at http://www.export.gov/ 

2010Africamission. They can also be 

obtained by contacting the Mission 

Contacts listed below. Applications 

received after January 15, 2010, will be 

considered only if space and scheduling 

constraints permit. 

VIII. Contacts 

Karen Dubin, Senior International Trade 

Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service/ 

Washington, DC, Tel: 202–482–3786; 

Fax: 202–482–7801, e-mail: 

Karen.Dubin@mail.doc.gov. 

Steven Morrison, Senior Commercial 

Officer, U.S. Commercial Service/ 

Dakar, Tel: 221–33–823–4296, x3202, 

Fax: 221–33–822–1371, e-mail: 

Steve.Morrison@mail.doc.gov. 

John Howell, Commercial Officer, U.S. 

Commercial Service/Johannesburg, 

Tel: 27–11–290–3062/Fax: 27–11– 

884–0253, e-mail: 

John.Howell@mail.doc.gov. 

Dated: October 1, 2009. 

Karen A. Dubin, 

Senior International Trade Specialist, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, International 

Trade Administration, Global Trade 

Programs, Washington, DC. 

[FR Doc. E9–24036 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Announcement of Performance Review 

Board Members 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Performance Review 

Board Membership. 

SUMMARY: 5 CFR 430.3 10 requires 

agencies to publish notice of 

Performance Review Board appointees 

in the Federal Register before their 

service begins. This notice announces 

the names of new and existing members 

of the International Trade 

Administration’s Performance Review 

Board. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of service of appointees to the 

International Trade Administration 

Performance Review Board is upon 

publication of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gwendolyn E. Brown, Department of 

Commerce Human Resources 

Operations Center (DOCHROC), Office 

of Executive Resources Operations, 14th 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

5015A, Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 

482–3060. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the Performance Review 

Board is to review and make 

recommendations to the appointing 

authority on performance management 

issues such as appraisals, bonuses, pay 

level increases, and Presidential Rank 

Awards for members of the Senior 

Executive Service. The term of the new 

members of the ITA PRB will expire 

after two years in December 31, 2011. 

The Acting Under Secretary for 

International Trade. Michelle O’Neill, 

has named the following members of the 

International Trade Administration 

Performance Review Board: 

1. Patricia A. Sefcik, Executive 

Director for Trade Promotion and 

Outreach (Chair). 

2. Walter M. Bastian, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Western 

Hemisphere, Market Access and 

Compliance. 

3. David M. Robinson, Chief Financial 

Officer and Director of Administration 

(new). 

4. Edward C. Yang, Senior Director, 

China Non-Market Economy 

Compliance Unit (new). 

5. Joel Secundy, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Services, ITA (new). 

6. Lisa A. Casias, Director for 

Financial Management (new). 

Dated: September 24, 2009. 

Susan Boggs, 

Director, Office of Executive Resources 

Operations, Department of Commerce Human 

Resources Operations Center. 

[FR Doc. E9–23924 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

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 Mid-C Financial Peak Contract; 

Mid-C Financial Peak Daily Contract; 

Mid-C Financial Off-Peak Contract; and 

Mid-C Financial Off-Peak 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 Mid-C 

Financial Peak (‘‘MDC’’) contract; MidC Financial Peak Daily (‘‘MPD’’) 

contract; Mid-C Financial Off-Peak 

(‘‘OMC’’) contract; and Mid-C Financial 

Off-Peak Daily (‘‘MXO’’) 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) 

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 Mid-C Financial Peak (MDC) 

Contract, ICE Mid-C Financial Peak 

Daily (MPD) Contract, ICE Mid-C 

Financial Off-Peak (OMC) Contract, 

and/or Mid-C Financial Off-Peak Daily 

(MXO) Contract in the subject line of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

1 74 FR 12178 (Mar. 23, 2009); these rules became 

effective on April 22, 2009. 

2The 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). 3Where 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. 

4 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7)(C). 

5Trades that are not deemed to qualify for 

inclusion in the index calculation are those that are 

done between two companies owned by the same 

parent company, price basis spread legs (i.e. spread 

trades that are executed on a trading platform that 

subsequently are converted into two outright prices 

for trade-reporting purposes), cancelled or altered 

trades prior to a counterparty’s confirmation, trades 

where the counterparty reverses a trade within two 

minutes of the previous transaction, and option 

trades that fall outside of the given time period for 

the index. 

6The MDC contract permits traders to choose 

either a single lot of 400 MWh in an entire month 

or 400 MWh each peak day of the contract month 

(in this case, the number of lots traded would equal 

the number of peak days). By and large, most 

traders opt for the latter variation of the contract. 

message, depending on the subject 

contracts 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’’) 1

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 a SPDC, the 

Commission will evaluate 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 a 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.2

After prompt consideration of all 

relevant information,3 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 4

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. Mid-C Financial Peak Contract 

The MDC contract is cash settled 

based on the arithmetic calendar-month 

average of peak-hour day-ahead 

electricity prices published daily in the 

‘‘ICE Day Ahead Power Price Report’’ 

for the Mid-Columbia hub during all 

peak hours in the month of the 

electricity production. The peak-hour 

electricity price reported each day by 

the ICE is a volume-weighted index that 

includes qualifying,5 day-ahead, peakhour power contracts based on the MidColumbia hub that are traded on the ICE 

platform from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. CST on 

the publication date. The ICE contracts 

on which the price index is based 

specify physical delivery of power. The 

ICE publishes index prices for those 

hubs where there is sufficient trading 

activity. Ideally, a hub displays a 

minimum of one trade per day and an 

average of three trades per day during 

the prior three months before the ICE 

begins publishing an index for that hub. 

The size of the MDC contract is 400 

megawatt hours (‘‘MWh’’),6 and the unit 

of trading is any multiple of 400 MWh. 

The MDC contract is listed for up to 86 

calendar months with four complete 

calendar years. 

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 

MDC contract, the total number of 

trades was 2,022 in the second quarter 

of 2009, resulting in a daily average of 

31.6 trades. During the same period, the 

MDC contract had a total trading 

volume of 67,400 contracts and an 

average daily trading volume of 1,053.1 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51263 

7The OMC contract permits traders to choose 

either a single lot of 25 MWh in an entire month 

or 25 MWh each off-peak day of the contract month 

(in this case, the number of lots traded would equal 

the number of off-peak days). By and large, most 

traders opt for the latter variation of the contract. 

contracts. Moreover, the open interest as 

of June 30, 2009, was 169,851 contracts. 

It appears that the MDC contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE MDC 

contract averaged more than 1,000 

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. Power 

contracts based on actively-traded hubs 

are transacted heavily on the ICE’s 

electronic trading platform, with the 

remainder being completed over-thecounter 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. 

C. Mid-C Financial Peak Daily Contract 

The MPD contract is cash settled 

based on the day-ahead index price 

published in the settlement month by 

the ICE for the specified day. The peak 

day-ahead electricity prices are 

published in the ‘‘ICE Day Ahead Power 

Price Report.’’ For each peak day of the 

month, the ICE reports a next-day peak 

electricity price for each hub using the 

methodology noted above. The ICE 

contracts on which the price index is 

based specify physical delivery of 

power. The size of the MPD contract is 

400 MWh. The MPD contract is listed 

for 38 consecutive 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 

MPD contract, the total number of trades 

was 1,294 in the second quarter of 2009, 

resulting in a daily average of 20.2 

trades. During the same period, the MPD 

contract had a total trading volume of 

18,862 contracts and an average daily 

trading volume of 294.7 contracts. 

Moreover, the open interest as of June 

30, 2009, was 826 contracts. 

It appears that the MPD contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE contract 

averaged nearly 300 contracts on a daily 

basis, with more than 20 separate 

transactions each day. In addition, the 

open interest in the subject contract was 

sizable. 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. Power 

contracts based on actively-traded hubs 

are transacted heavily on the ICE’s 

electronic trading platform, with the 

remainder being completed over-thecounter 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. 

D. Mid-C Financial Off-Peak Contract 

The OMC contract is cash settled 

based on the arithmetic calendar month 

average of off-peak day-ahead electricity 

prices published in the ‘‘ICE Day Ahead 

Power Price Report’’ for the MidColumbia hub during all off-peak hours 

in the month of the electricity 

production. The electricity price 

reported each day by the ICE is a 

volume-weighted index that includes 

qualifying day-ahead off-peak power 

contracts based on the Mid-Columbia 

hub that are traded on the ICE platform 

from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. CST on the date 

of publication. The ICE contracts on 

which the price index is based specify 

physical delivery of power. The ICE 

publishes off-peak index prices for those 

hubs where there is sufficient trading 

activity. The size of the OMC contract 

is 25 MWh,7 and the unit of trading is 

any multiple of 25 MWh. The OMC 

contract is listed for up to 86 calendar 

months with three complete calendar 

years. 

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 

OMC contract, the total number of 

trades was 443 in the second quarter of 

2009, resulting in a daily average of 6.9 

trades. During the same period, the 

OMC contract had a total trading 

volume of 185,950 contracts and an 

average daily trading volume of 2,905.5 

contracts. The open interest as of June 

30, 2009, was 1,015,361 contracts (each 

with a size of 25 MWh). 

It appears that the OMC contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 

liquidity, trading in the ICE OMC 

contract averaged nearly 3,000 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 identify 

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-thecounter 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. 

E. Mid-C Financial Off-Peak Daily 

Contract 

The MXO contract is cash settled 

based on the day-ahead index price 

published in the settlement month by 

the ICE for the specified day. The offpeak day-ahead electricity prices are 

published in the ‘‘ICE Day Ahead Power 

Price Report.’’ For each off-peak day of 

the month, the ICE reports a next-day 

off-peak electricity price for each hub 

using the methodology noted above. The 

ICE contracts on which the price index 

is based specify physical delivery of 

power. The size of the MXO contract is 

25 MWh. The MXO contract is listed for 

38 consecutive 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 

MXO contract, the total number of 

trades was 437 in the second quarter of 

2009, resulting in a daily average of 6.8 

trades. During the same period, the 

MXO contract had a total trading 

volume of 61,688 contracts and an 

average daily trading volume of 963.9 

contracts. Moreover, the open interest as 

of June 30, 2009, was 5,232 contracts. 

It appears that the MXO contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity and 

material price reference factors for SPDC 

determination. With respect to material 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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