[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27039-27040]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC11-76-000
    Applicants: EAM Nelson Holding, LLC
    Description: Application of EAM Nelson Holding, LLC for
Authorization of Transaction Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act and Request for Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5137
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-2182-001
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company
    Description: Ameren Illinois Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Compliance Filing for Ameren Illinois for Rate Schedules 125, 127 to be
effective 5/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5000
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2901-001
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Answer to Deficiency Letter ER11-2901 to be effective 4/18/
2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5090
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2902-001
    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Answer to Deficiency Letter ER11-2902 to be effective 4/18/
2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5094
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3370-000
    Applicants: Phalanx Energy Services, LLC
    Description: Supplement to Application for Market-Based Rate
Authorization under Section 205 of Phalanx Energy Services, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/27/2011
    Accession Number: 20110427-5178
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 9, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3510-001
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): 2011-05-04 Errata to Self-Provision
of Regulation Amendment to be effective 5/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5112
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3513-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii) Queue No. U2-077 & W1-001 Interim ISA, Original
Service Agreement No. 2862 to be effective 4/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5040
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3514-000
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.12: PLUM NLR DTOA to be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5054
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3515-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii) Queue No. W3-041; Original Service Agreement No. 2858
to be effective 4/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5065
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3516-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. on May 3, 2011, PJM
submitted to FERC a Request for Limited Tariff Waiver of Section
3.2.3(f) of Attachment K--Appendix of the PJM Tariff and the parallel
provisions.
    Filed Date: 05/03/2011
    Accession Number: 20110503-5273
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 24, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3518-000
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Amendment to FPL's OATT Attachment C to be effective 3/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5100
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3519-000
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, L.L.C.
    Description: NedPower Mount Storm, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance Filing--NedPower Sect. VI to be effective 5/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/04/2011
    Accession Number: 20110504-5111
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 25, 2011
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11373 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62331-62332]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1868]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1868, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP

and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates
for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Escambia County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 17-04-4565S Preliminary Date: June 18, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Atmore.........................  City Hall, 201 East Louisville
                                          Avenue, Atmore, AL 36502.
Unincorporated Areas of Escambia County  Escambia County Emergency
                                          Management Agency, 314
                                          Belleville Avenue, Brewton, AL
                                          36426.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-26103 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 61 (Thursday, April 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17257-17259]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06731]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-321, OMB Control No. 3235-0358]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension: Rule 11a-3

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 11(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') (15
U.S.C. 80a-11(a)) provides that it is unlawful for a registered open-
end investment company (``fund'') or its underwriter to make an offer
to the fund's shareholders or the shareholders of any other fund to
exchange the fund's securities for securities of the same or another
fund on any basis other than the relative net asset values (``NAVs'')
of the respective securities to be exchanged, ``unless the terms of the
offer have first been submitted to and approved by the Commission or
are in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may
have prescribed in respect of such offers.'' Section 11(a) was designed
to prevent ``switching,'' the practice of inducing shareholders of one
fund to exchange their shares for the shares of another fund for the
purpose of exacting additional sales charges.
    Rule 11a-3 (17 CFR 270.11a-3) under the Act is an exemptive rule
that permits open-end investment companies (``funds''), other than
insurance company separate accounts, and funds' principal underwriters,
to make certain exchange offers to fund shareholders and shareholders
of other funds in the same group of investment companies. The rule
requires a fund, among other things, (i) to disclose in its prospectus
and advertising literature the amount of any administrative or
redemption fee imposed on an exchange transaction, (ii) if the fund
imposes an administrative fee on exchange transactions, other than a
nominal one, to maintain and preserve records with respect to the
actual costs incurred in connection with exchanges for at least six
years, and (iii) give the fund's shareholders a sixty day notice of a
termination of an exchange offer or any material amendment to the terms
of an exchange offer (unless the only material effect of an amendment
is to reduce or eliminate an administrative fee, sales load or
redemption fee payable at the time of an exchange).
    The rule's requirements are designed to protect investors against
abuses associated with exchange offers, provide fund shareholders with
information necessary to evaluate exchange offers and certain material
changes in the terms of exchange offers, and enable the Commission
staff to monitor funds' use of administrative fees charged in
connection with exchange transactions.
    The staff estimates that there are approximately 1,397 active open-
end investment companies registered with the Commission as of October
2020. The staff estimates that 25 percent of these funds (349 funds)
impose a non-nominal administrative fee on exchange transactions. The
staff estimates that the recordkeeping requirement of the rule requires
approximately 1 hour annually of clerical time (at an estimated $63 per
hour) \1\ per fund, for a total of 349 hours for all funds (at a total
annual cost of $21,987).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate of $63 per hour for clerical work and the
other estimated wage rates below are derived from the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association's (``SIFMA'') Office
Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to account for an
1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses,
firm size, employee benefits and overhead (updated for inflation).
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1,397
funds x 25% = 349 funds); (349 x 1 (clerical hour) = 349 clerical
hours); (349 x $63 = $21,987 total annual cost for recordkeeping
requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff estimates that 5 percent of these 1,397 funds (or 70
funds) terminate an exchange offer or make a material change to the
terms of their exchange offer each year, requiring the fund to comply
with the notice requirement of the rule. The staff estimates that
complying with the notice requirement of the rule requires
approximately 1 hour of attorney time (at an estimated $419 per hour)
\3\ and 2 hours of clerical time (at an estimated $63 per hour) per
fund, for a total of approximately 210 hours for all funds to comply
with the notice requirement (at a total annual cost of $38,150).\4\ The
staff estimates that such notices will be enclosed with other written
materials sent to shareholders, such as annual shareholder reports or
account statements, and therefore any burdens associated with mailing
required notices are accounted for in the burdens associated with Form
N-1A registration statements for funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The estimate of $419 per hour for an Attorney is derived
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead (adjusted for inflation).
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1,397
(funds) x 5% = 70 funds); (70 x 1 (attorney hour) = 70 total
attorney hours); (70 (funds) x 2 (clerical hours) = 140 total
clerical hours); (70 (attorney hours) + 140 (clerical hours) = 210
total hours); (70 (attorney hours) x $419 = $29,330 total attorney
cost); (140 (clerical hours) x $63 = $8,820 clerical cost); ($29,330
+ $8,820 = $38,150 total annual cost).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recordkeeping and notice requirements together impose an
estimated total burden of 559 hours on all funds (at a total annual
cost of $60,137).\5\ The total number of respondents is 419, each
responding once a year.\6\ The burdens associated with the disclosure
requirement of the rule are accounted for in the burdens associated
with the Form N-1A registration statement for funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (210
(notice hours) + 349 (recordkeeping hours) = 559 total hours);
($38,150 (notice costs) + $21,987 (recordkeeping costs) = $60,137
total annual costs).
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (349
funds responding to recordkeeping requirement + 70 funds responding
to notice requirement = 419 total respondents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below summarizes the currently-approved and updated burdens
associated with rule 11a-3.

                               Table 1--Summary of Burden Estimates for Rule 11a-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Internal burden             Wage rate         Cost of internal burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CURRENTLY-APPROVED BURDEN ESTIMATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Requirement............  1 hour.................  $59/hr. (clerk)........  $59.
Respondents..........................  402 funds..............  .......................  402 funds.
Total................................  402 hours..............  .......................  $23,718.
Notice Requirement...................  1 hour.................  $392/hr. (attorney)....  $392.
                                       2 hours................  $59/hr. (clerk)........  $118.
Respondents..........................  80 funds...............  .......................  80 funds.
Total................................  240 hours..............  .......................  $40,800.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Responses..................  482....................                           .......................
    (Recordkeeping + Notice).........
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Burden.....................  642 hours..............  .......................  $64,518.
    (Recordkeeping + Notice).........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            UPDATED BURDEN ESTIMATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Requirement............  1 hour.................  $63/hr. (clerk)........  $63.
Respondents..........................  349 funds..............  .......................  349 funds.
Total................................  349 hours..............  .......................  $21,987.
Notice Requirement...................  1 hour.................  $419/hr. (attorney)....  $419.
                                       2 hours................  $63/hr. (clerk)........  $126.
Respondents..........................  70 funds...............  .......................  70 funds.
Total................................  210 hours..............  .......................  $38,150.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Responses..................  419                                               .......................
    (Recordkeeping + Notice).........
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden.....................  559 hours..............  .......................  $60,137
    (Recordkeeping + Notice).........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden(s)
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 29, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06731 Filed 3-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16265-16270]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0182; FRL-9908-44-Region-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Conformity Budgets, Emissions Inventories;
State of New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision will
establish an updated ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for
the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
(NYCMA) CO area which includes the following seven counties: Bronx,
Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond and Westchester. In addition,
EPA proposes to approve a revision to the CO motor vehicle emissions
budgets for New York and revisions to the 2007 Attainment/Base Year
emissions inventory.
    The New York portion of the NYCMA CO area was redesignated to
attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on
April 19, 2002 and maintenance plans were also approved at that time.
By this action, EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance plan
for this area because it provides for continued attainment for an
additional ten years of the CO NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2014-0182, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2014-0182. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Feingersh
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for general questions, Raymond Forde
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for emissions inventory questions, or Melanie
Zeman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for mobile source related questions at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, telephone number (212)
637-4249, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the nature of EPA's action?
II. What is the Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for the New
York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon
Monoxide area?
III. What is included in a maintenance plan?
    A. Attainment Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network
    D. Verification of Continued Attainment
    E. Contingency Plan
    1. Control Measures
    2. Contingency Measures
    F. Conformity
IV. What is the New York emissions inventory?
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the nature of EPA's action?

    EPA is proposing to approve an updated ten-year carbon monoxide
(CO) maintenance plan for the New York portion of the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island (NYCMA) CO area. On April 19, 2002, the EPA
approved a request from New York to redesignate the New York portion of
the NYCMA CO area to attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) (67 FR 19337). In addition, the EPA also approved at
that time a ten-year CO maintenance plan for the area. The Clean Air
Act (the Act) requires that an area redesignated to attainment of the
CO NAAQS must submit a second ten-year CO maintenance Plan to show how
the area will continue to attain the CO standard for an additional ten
years. On May 9, 2013, New York submitted a second ten-year CO
maintenance plan for the New York portion of the NYCMA CO area and
requested that EPA approve the plan. The following sections describe
how the EPA made its determination proposing to approve the second ten-
year maintenance plan. EPA is also proposing to approve a revision to
the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets for New York. This additional
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision is discussed in section
II.B.6. A more detailed discussion of EPA's review and proposed action
is found in the Technical Support Document available in the Docket for
this action, and by contacting the individuals in the For Further
Information Section.

II. What is the Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan for the New
York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon
Monoxide area?

    A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS in the maintenance area
for at least ten years. The Act requires that a second ten-year plan be
submitted in order to assure that the area will continue to stay in
compliance with the relevant NAAQS. For the NYCMA CO area, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation is proposing to utilize
EPA's limited maintenance plan approach, as detailed in the EPA
guidance memorandum, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, Group
Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality
and Planning Standards OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995. Pursuant to this
approach, EPA will consider the maintenance demonstration satisfied for
areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65
parts per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS. The design value must be based on eight consecutive quarters of
data. For such areas, there is no requirement to project emissions of
air quality over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the area
begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the CO 8 hour
NAAQS, the applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and
Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over
the initial 10-year maintenance period. In addition, the design value
for the area must continue to be at or below 7.65

ppm until the time of final EPA action on the redesignation.

III. What is included in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of maintenance
plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The initial and subsequent ten-year plans must each demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years
after approval. EPA is proposing action on the second ten-year
maintenance plan which covers the period from 2012 through 2022. The
specific elements of a maintenance plan are:

A. Attainment Inventory

    EPA's October 6, 1995 Limited Maintenance Plan guidance states that
for inventory purposes the state is only required to submit an
attainment inventory to EPA that is based on monitoring data which
shows attainment. There is no requirement to project emissions over the
maintenance period. The calendar year inventory selected for the
attainment inventory is 2007. This means if 2007 is a calendar year
which has monitoring data which demonstrates attainment of the
standard, the 2007 base year inventory can be used as the attainment
year inventory and no projection inventories are required over the
years of the maintenance period. Only calendar year 2007 summary
emissions data (based on winter season day) are required. In addition,
the inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on
emission inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and
should include emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment.
    New York submitted a limited maintenance plan which included a 2007
base year emissions inventory. The 2007 inventory is also classified as
the attainment year inventory for the limited maintenance plan. New
York has elected 2007 because it is the attainment year base year that
will be used for the limited maintenance plan and 2007 represents one
of the years of violation free monitored data in the area. The
inventory included peak winter season daily emissions from stationary
point, stationary area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources of
CO. These emission estimates were prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance.
    EPA is proposing to approve the CO inventory for the counties of
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond and Westchester.
Details of the inventory review are located in section VII. A. of this
action. A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was
reviewed and the results of EPA's review are presented in the technical
support document.
    Table 1 presents a summary of the 2007 CO peak winter season daily
emissions estimates in tons per day for the NYCMA CO area. Again, under
the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, there is no requirement to
project emissions over the maintenance period.

                                 Table 1--2007 Base Year Inventory NYCMA CO Area
                                          [Tons/peak winter season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Off-highway
             County                    Point           Area           mobile      Highway mobile       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronx...........................            1.77           77.18           29.38          156.54          264.87
Kings...........................            2.81          149.41           96.40          263.40          510.22
Nassau..........................            3.52           81.07          118.93          580.89          784.40
New York........................            4.21          141.96          230.59          202.87          579.64
Queens..........................            7.71          125.77          102.03          441.15          675.66
Richmond........................            1.48           25.57           21.12          130.41          178.58
Westchester.....................            1.11           60.18           81.66          382.66          525.62
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           22.61          661.14          678.31        2,257.93        3,519.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    New York has met the Limited Maintenance Plan air quality criteria
requirement by demonstrating that its highest monitored design value is
less than 85 percent (7.65 parts per million) of the CO standard of 9.0
parts per million. The highest monitored design value in the NYCMA CO
area for the 2012-2013 design year was 2.5 parts per million at a
monitoring site in New Jersey. The highest monitored design value
measured in the New York State portion of the NYCMA CO area was 1.5
parts per million. In addition, New York commits to continued
implementation of all other Federal and State measures already
implemented as part of its CO SIP. Thus, according to the Limited
Maintenance Guidance, emission projections are not required.

C. Monitoring Network

    New York continues to operate its CO monitoring network and will
continue to work with the EPA through the air monitoring network review
process as required by 40 CFR Part 58 to determine the adequacy of its
network. New York will continue annual reviews of its data in order to
verify continued attainment of the NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, all of
New York's 8-hour design values are well below the 9.0 ppm 8-hour NAAQS
for CO with the highest monitor in the New York portion of the NYCMA
reading 1.5 ppm, as shown in Table 2.

                Table 2--Design Values for CO in New York
                 [8-Hour standard--9 parts per million]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2012-2013
                                                                Design
                    Monitoring location                         value
                                                              (parts per
                                                               million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200th Street, Bronx........................................          1.5
160 Convent Ave., New York.................................          1.3
Queens College, Queens.....................................          1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SIP revision, New York used the 2010-2011 design values. EPA
reviewed more recent data in addition to the 2010-2011 data and found
the maximum 2012-2013 design value for New York to be 1.5 ppm, which
continues to show attainment of the NAAQS.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    New York will verify that the New York portion of the NYCMA CO area
continues to attain the CO NAAQS through an annual review of its
monitoring data. If any design value exceeds 7.65 ppm, New York will
coordinate with EPA Region 2 to verify and evaluate the data and then,
if warranted, develop a full maintenance plan for the affected
maintenance area.

E. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A (d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan
include a contingency plan which includes contingency measures, as
necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation of the area. Contingency measures do not have to be
fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency
plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should
ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once
they are triggered by a specified event. In addition, the contingency
plan includes a requirement that the State continue to implement all
control measures used to bring the area into attainment.
    The triggers specified in New York's previous maintenance plan are
included in this Limited Maintenance Plan. If air quality monitoring
data indicate that the CO NAAQS were exceeded, New York will analyze
the data to determine the cause of the violation. If it is determined
that the violation was caused by a non-local motor vehicle usage event,
then the State will institute the contingency measures described below.
1. Control Measures
    New York has implemented a number of measures to control motor
vehicle CO emissions. Emission reductions achieved through the
implementation of these control measures are enforceable. These
measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, Federal
reformulated gasoline, New York's pre-1990 modifications to its
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and local control measures
relied on in the SIP.
    The State of New York has demonstrated that actual enforceable
emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and
that the CO emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to
local economic downturn. EPA finds that the combination of existing
EPA-approved SIP and Federal measures contribute to the permanence and
enforceability of reductions in ambient CO levels that have allowed the
New York portion of the NYCMA CO area to attain the NAAQS since 1992.
    New York commits to continuing to implement all control measures
used to bring the area into attainment.
2. Contingency Measures
    The State plans to continue to use the contingency measure from the
original maintenance plan. The plan included implementation of an
enhanced I/M program. This program is fully operational and the State
commits to meet the performance standard for an enhanced I/M program in
an effort to maintain the CO NAAQS. Although the plan is currently in
place, EPA guidance allows for it to act as a contingency measure. In
addition, since we had approved this measure in the previous
maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve it in this action.

F. Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean
that no Federal transportation activity will: (1) Cause or contribute
to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the
frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any
area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The
Federal transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets
forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are
developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of
Federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (49
U.S.C. chapter 53).
    The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment
and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the transportation conformity
rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB), the expected emissions from planned transportation
activities must be consistent with such established budgets for that
area.
    In the case of the NYCMA CO area, however, the emissions budgets
may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of this
second maintenance period as long as the area continues to meet the
limited maintenance criteria, because there is no reason to expect that
these areas will experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, emissions from
on-road transportation sources need not be capped for the maintenance
period because it is unreasonable to believe that emissions from such
sources would increase to a level that would threaten the air quality
in this area for the duration of this maintenance period. Therefore,
for the limited maintenance plan CO maintenance area, all Federal
actions that require conformity determinations under the transportation
conformity rule are considered to satisfy the regional emissions
analysis and ''budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 of the rule.
    Since limited maintenance plan areas are still maintenance areas,
however, transportation conformity determinations are still required
for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, transportation plans, transportation improvement
programs, and projects must still demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR part 108) and must meet the criteria for
consultation and Transportation Control Measure (TCM) implementation in
the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In
addition, projects in limited maintenance areas will still be required
to meet the criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy ``project
level'' conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123)
which must incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models that
are available. All aspects of transportation conformity (with the
exception of satisfying the emission budget test) will still be
required.
    If the NYCMA CO area should monitor CO concentrations at or above
the limited maintenance eligibility criteria or 7.65 parts per million
then this maintenance area would no longer qualify for a limited
maintenance plan and would revert to a full maintenance plan. In this
event, the limited maintenance plan would remain applicable for
conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is submitted
and EPA has found its motor vehicle emissions budget adequate for
conformity purposes or EPA approves the full maintenance plan SIP
revision. At that time regional emissions analyses would resume as a
transportation conformity criteria.
    EPA has also posted the Limited Maintenance plan for the NYCMA CO
area on our Transportation Conformity Adequacy Web site for a thirty
day public comment period beginning June 11, 2013. No public comments
were received.

IV. What is the New York emissions inventory?

    Section 182(a)(3) and 172(c)(3) of the Act requires the periodic
submission of a base inventory for SIP planning processes to address
the pollutants for the eight hour-ozone, PM2.5 and CO
national ambient air quality standard. Identifying the base year gives
certainty to states that requires submission of the ozone,
PM2.5 and CO emission inventories periodically. These
requirements allow the EPA, based on the states' progress in reducing
emissions, to periodically reassess its policies and air quality
standards and revise them as necessary. Most important, the ozone,
PM2.5 and CO inventories will be used to develop and assess
new control strategies that the states will need to submit in their
attainment demonstration SIPs for the new national ambient air quality
standards for ozone, PM2.5 and for CO. The base year
inventory may also serve as part of statewide inventories for purposes
of regional modeling in transport areas. The base year inventory plays
an important role in modeling demonstrations for areas classified as
nonattainment and outside transport regions. For the reasons stated
above, ideally EPA would therefore emphasize the importance and
benefits of developing a comprehensive, current, and accurate emission
inventory (similar to the 1990 base year inventory effort). In this
case, the 2007 base year has been selected as the inventory that will
be used for planning purposes for the NYCMA CO area.
    There are specific components of an acceptable emission inventory.
The emission inventory must meet certain minimum requirements for
reporting each source category. Specifically, the source requirements
are detailed below.
    The review process, which is described in supporting documentation,
is used to determine that all components of the base year inventory are
present. This review also evaluates the level of supporting
documentation provided by the state, assesses whether the emissions
were developed according to current EPA guidance, and evaluates the
quality of the data.
    The review process is outlined here and consists of 8 points that
the inventory must include. For a base year emission inventory to be
acceptable, it must pass all of the following acceptance criteria:
    1. Evidence that the inventory was quality assured by the state and
its implementation documented.
    2. The point source inventory was complete.
    3. Point source emissions were prepared or calculated according to
the current EPA guidance.
    4. The area source inventory was complete.
    5. The area source emissions were prepared or calculated according
to the current EPA guidance.
    6. Non-road mobile emissions were prepared according to current EPA
guidance for all of the source categories.
    7. The method (e.g., HPMS or a network transportation planning
model) used to develop VMT estimates followed EPA guidance.
    8. The MOBILE model was correctly used to produce emission factors
for each of the vehicle classes.
    Based on EPA's review, New York satisfied all of EPA's requirements
for purposes of providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions for CO areas. Where applicable, CO peak
winter season daily emissions are provided for CO nonattainment area.
The inventory was developed in accordance with Emission Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and
Regional Haze Regulation, dated August 2005. A summary of EPA's review
is given below:
    1. The Quality Assurance (QA) plan was implemented for all portions
of the inventory. The QA plan included a QA/Quality control (QC)
program for assessing data completeness and standard range checking.
Critical data elements relative to the inventory sources were assessed
for completeness. QA checks were performed relative to data collection
and analysis, and double counting of emissions from point, area and
mobile sources. QA/QC checks were conducted to ensure accuracy of
units, unit conversions, transposition of figures, and calculations.
    2. The inventory is well documented. New York provided
documentation detailing the methods used to develop emissions estimates
for each category. In addition, New York identified the sources of data
used in developing the inventory.
    3. The point source emissions are complete in accordance with EPA
guidance.
    4. The point source emissions were prepared/calculated in
accordance with EPA guidance.
    5. The area source emissions are complete and were prepared/
calculated in accordance with EPA guidance.
    6. Emission estimates for the non-road mobile source categories
were correctly based on the latest non-road mobile model and prepared
in accordance with EPA guidance.
    7. The method used to develop VMT estimates was in accordance with
EPA guidance and was adequately described and documented in the
inventory report.
    8. Latest Mobile model was used correctly for each of the vehicle
classes. The 2007 base year inventory has been developed in accordance
with EPA guidance. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 base
year CO emission inventory.
    A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventory was
reviewed and the results of the review are presented in the technical
support document. Detailed emission inventory development procedures
can be found in the following document: Emission Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze
Regulation, dated August 2005. See Table 1 for a summary of 2007 CO
peak winter season daily emission estimates by source sector and by
county for the NYCMA CO area.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA has evaluated New York's submittals for consistency with the
Act and Agency regulations and policy. EPA is proposing to approve New
York's CO limited maintenance plan because it meets the requirements
set forth in section 175A of the Act and continues to demonstrate that
the NAAQS for CO will continue to be met for the next ten years. EPA is
proposing to approve the revisions to the CO motor vehicle emissions
budgets for New York. Finally, this notice also proposes to approve
revisions to the 2007 base year emission inventories.
    EPA views the SIP revisions proposed in today's proposal as
separable actions. This means that if EPA receives adverse comments on
particular portions of this notice and not on other portions, EPA may
choose not to take final action at the same time in a single notice on
all of these SIP revisions. Instead, EPA may choose to take final
action on these SIP revisions in separate notices.
    Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Region 2 Office by
one of the methods discussed in the ADDRESSES section of this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 10, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2014-06585 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 30876]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, June 3,
2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
June 3, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13329 Filed 5-28-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P