[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38677-38678]
[DOCID:fr04au09-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60394; File No. SR-DTC-2009-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Municipal Bonds
Redemption Process

July 28, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 15, 2009, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC proposes to modify the timing when an issuer of certain
municipal securities or its agent notifies DTC of a redemption or an
advance refunding of such municipal securities.

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

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

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

    In early 2008, the Association of Global Custodians (``AGC'') and
DTC formed a working group to explore issues associated with redemption
announcements. Several meetings were held in 2008 with participation
from members of the AGC, The Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, the agent community, DTC, and DTC's participants.
    Among other things, the working group reviewed redemption
announcement data for a six month period and discovered that many
conventional municipal bond \2\ issuers or their agents were notifying
DTC of the redemption or refund later than the 30 day Publication Date
period as required in DTC's rules. The working group then investigated
the ramifications of this and concluded that if DTC were to amend the
Publication Date from the current standard of ``no fewer than 30
calendar days'' prior to the redemption or advance refund to ``no fewer
than 20 calendar days'' prior to the redemption or advance refund for
conventional municipal bonds, DTC would still have sufficient time to
process the redemption announcement and issuers and their agents would
have more time to notify DTC of a redemption thereby making the
redemption notification process more efficient. The working group
presented this proposal to the American Bankers Association and to the
National Association of Bond Lawyers and both organizations approved
this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``conventional municipal bond'' was defined as ``a bond
without any derivatives attached to it and no inherent features that
would prevent a redemption announcement from being provided in a
timely manner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, DTC proposes to amend Part V.A. of its Operational
Arrangements to redefine the time frame for an issuer or its agent of a
conventional municipal bond to notify DTC of a full or partial
redemption or an advance refunding of part of such outstanding
securities. Under the proposal, the issuer or agent will have to notify
DTC at least two business days prior to the Publication Date, which
will be redefined as ``no fewer than 20 calendar days nor more than 60
calendar days prior to the redemption date or, in the case of an
advance refunding, the date that the proceeds are deposited in escrow
(and, in such cases, final notification must be received no later than
20 calendar days prior to the refunding date.)'' DTC proposes that this
new requirement would be effective October 1, 2009.
    DTC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \3\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because it modifies an existing DTC service in
order to make the redemption process for municipal bonds more
efficient. As such it is a change to an existing service, which will
not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities and funds in DTC's
control or custody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-DTC-2009-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2009-13. This file
number

should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for inspection and
copying at DTC's principal office and DTC's Web site at (http://
www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html). All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2009-13 and should be submitted on or
before August 25, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18558 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15097]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1198-000]

Solano 3 Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Solano 3 Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 28, 2012.
    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 Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6133 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34681-34686]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12044]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0716; FRL-10010-04-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Second
Maintenance Plan for 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA is
proposing to approve the plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) through 2032
in the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) area.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2018-0716, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not

submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact Jeff Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Riley, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. Second Maintenance Plan
    B. Transportation Conformity
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to the Texas SIP, an
updated 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the Beaumont-Port Arthur
area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the area in attainment
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end of the second 10-year
maintenance period.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants are referred to as ozone
precursors. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health
effects occur following exposure to ozone.
    In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per
million (ppm), averaged over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8,
1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at
0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18,
1997).\1\ EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated
certain areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area, consisting of Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties as
nonattainment. These designations became effective on June 15, 2004.
Under the CAA, states are also required to adopt and submit SIPs to
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS in designated nonattainment
areas and throughout the state.
    When a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and the area has met other required criteria described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the state can submit to EPA a request
to be redesignated to attainment, and if approved, would then be
referred to as a ``maintenance area''.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignation. They include attainment of the NAAQS, full
approval under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP, determination
that improvement in air quality is a result of permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions, demonstration that the state
has met all applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and a
fully approved maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance and such
contingency provisions as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected. At the end of the eighth year
after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years. CAA section 175A.
    EPA has long-standing guidance for states on developing maintenance
plans. This includes ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the
``Calcagni Memorandum'').\3\ The Calcagni Memorandum provides that
states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air
quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission
rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni Memorandum at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992. To view the memo, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 16, 2008, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This submittal
included a plan to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the BPA area
through 2021 as a revision to the Texas SIP. EPA approved the
maintenance plan for the BPA area and redesignated the area to
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS effective November 19, 2010 (75 FR
64675). The Beaumont-Port Arthur area continues to meet the 1997
standard. In fact, air quality has continued to improve. The area's
preliminary design value for 2017-2019 is 70 ppb which not only

complies with the 1997 standard but also the more stringent 2008 and
2015 ozone standards.
    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one
consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 standard no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\4\ However, in South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA \5\ (South Coast II), the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation
that, because of the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second
maintenance plans were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,''
i.e., areas that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 NAAQS
and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, states
with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997 ozone NAAQS must
submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period.
Accordingly, on February 5, 2019, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) submitted the second maintenance plan for the Beaumont-
Port Arthur area. The maintenance plan shows that the area is expected
to remain in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end of the
full 20-year maintenance period. The State's submittal also included a
request to EPA to redesignate the BPA area to attainment for the
revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS \6\ and a plan to provide for
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard in the BPA area through 2032.
EPA is not addressing the 1-hour ozone standard portion of the State's
submission at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \5\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
    \6\ In April 2004, EPA published a rule governing implementation
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule). 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004). The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS along with
designations and classifications for that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Second Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the maintenance plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment of the NAAQS will continue for an
additional 10 years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. To
address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance
plan must contain contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to
assure prompt correction of the future NAAQS violation.
    The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of
a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five elements: (1) An attainment emission inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring;
(4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.
    On February 5, 2019, TCEQ submitted, as a SIP revision, a plan to
provide for maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard in the Beaumont-Port
Arthur area through 2032, more than 20 years after the effective date
of redesignation to attainment. As discussed below, EPA finds that
Texas' second maintenance plan includes the necessary components and
proposes to approve the maintenance plan as a revision to the Texas
SIP.
1. Attainment Inventory
    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day VOC and NOX
emissions, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
    The CAA section 175A maintenance plan approved by EPA for the first
10-year period included an attainment inventory that reflects typical
summer day VOC and NOX emissions for the 2005 attainment
year. In addition, because the BPA maintenance area continued to
monitor attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014, this is also an
appropriate year to use for an attainment year inventory. As such, the
TCEQ has developed a 2014 attainment year inventory for the BPA area,
presented in Table 1 below, to represent the VOC and NOX
emissions that occur on a typical summer weekday. The 2014 attainment
year inventory was developed from the 2014 periodic emissions inventory
(PEI), in accordance with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements. See
80 FR 8787 (February 19, 2015). For some source categories, the TCEQ
developed state-specific emissions estimates by acquiring state-
specific activity data and applying appropriate emissions factors in
developing the 2014 attainment year inventory, as well as projections
for the 2032 maintenance year inventory presented in Table 2 below.
These source categories include but are not limited to: Storage tanks,
structural fires, dry cleaners, and automobile fires. In particular,
the TCEQ focused on refining the oil and gas area source inventory
production categories. These inventories also include descriptions of
the methods used to estimate emissions.\7\ Table 1 shows 2014
attainment year VOC and NOX emission totals for all sectors
for the BPA maintenance area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information on EIs, including guidance, reports,
and resources, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.

    Table 1--Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX
        Emissions for Attainment year 2014 in Tons per Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Source category                       VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad...............................................     2.67    16.66
Onroad................................................     6.27    18.49
Point.................................................    32.20    62.25
Area..................................................    54.99     3.89
                                                       -----------------
  Total...............................................    96.13   101.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Maintenance Demonstration
    TCEQ is demonstrating maintenance through 2032 by showing that
future emissions of VOC and NOX for the Beaumont-Port Arthur
area remain at or below attainment year emission levels. 2032 is an
appropriate maintenance year for the BPA area because it is more than
10 years beyond the first 10-year maintenance period. The 2032
emissions inventory is projected from the 2014 PEI, which was the most
recent available inventory at the time the TCEQ was preparing the
maintenance plan submittal for the BPA area. The 2032 summer day
emissions inventory for the Beaumont-Port Arthur area is summarized in
Table 2 below.

    Table 2--Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX
                   Emissions for Maintenance Year 2032
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Source category                    VOC             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad.................................            2.29            7.64
Onroad..................................            2.21            4.76
Point...................................           32.73           62.32
Area....................................           43.65            3.95
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           80.88           78.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below shows the changes in VOC and NOX emissions
between the attainment year (2014) and maintenance year (2032) for the
BPA maintenance area.

                   Table 3--Change in Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions in the Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Between 2014 and 2032
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                        NOX
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Source category                                                         Net change                                 Net change
                                                                        2014          2032        (2014-2032)       2014          2032       (2014-2032)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad...........................................................          2.67          2.29          -0.38          16.66          7.64         -9.02
Onroad............................................................          6.27          2.21          -4.06          18.49          4.76        -13.73
Point.............................................................         32.20         32.73          +0.53          62.25         62.32         +0.07
Area..............................................................         54.99         43.65         -11.34           3.89          3.95         +0.06
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................................         96.13         80.88         -15.25         101.29         78.67        -22.62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note the slight increase in point source VOC emissions, which is
offset by the decreases in area and mobile source VOC emissions.
Additionally, the slight increases in stationary source NOX
emissions are offset by decreases in mobile source NOX
emissions. We also note that the projections for the on-road mobile
source inventory for 2032, which TCEQ submitted as motor vehicle
emissions budgets, are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The maintenance demonstration for the BPA area shows maintenance
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by providing emissions information to support
the demonstration that future emissions of NOX and VOC will
remain at or below 2014 emission levels when considering both future
source growth and implementation of future controls. We are proposing
that TCEQ has met the maintenance demonstration requirements on the
basis that the approach and methods of calculating the attainment year
and future year emission inventories that were used are consistent with
EPA guidance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See EPA's web page for Emission Models and Other Methods to
Produce Emission Inventories. The web page includes general guidance
for preparing inventories; estimating commercial marine emission
inventories and port emissions; estimating emissions from
locomotives; and estimating emissions from aircraft: https://www.epa.gov/moves/emissions-models-and-other-methods-produce-emission-inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring
    TCEQ has committed to continue to operate an approved ozone
monitoring network in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. TCEQ has committed
to consult with EPA prior to making changes to the existing monitoring
network should changes become necessary in the future. TCEQ remains
obligated to meet monitoring requirements and continue to quality
assure monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to enter
all data into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal
guidelines.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    The State of Texas has confirmed that it has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the requirements of the maintenance plans for the
areas addressed in this action. This includes the authority to adopt,
implement, and enforce any subsequent emission control measures
determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.
    Verification of continued attainment is accomplished through
operation of the ambient ozone monitoring network and the periodic
update of the area's emissions inventory. TCEQ has committed to
continue to operate an approved ozone monitoring network in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur maintenance area. TCEQ will not discontinue
operation, relocate, or otherwise change the existing ozone monitoring
network other than through revisions in the network approved by EPA.
    In addition, to track future levels of emissions, TCEQ has
committed to continue to develop and submit to EPA updated emission
inventories for all source categories at least once every three years,
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, and in
40 CFR 51.122. The Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) was
promulgated by EPA on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602). The CERR was
replaced by the Annual Emissions Reporting Requirements on December 17,
2008 (73 FR 76539).
5. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that the state must adopt a
maintenance plan, as a SIP revision, that includes such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the
area to attainment of the NAAQS. The maintenance plan must identify:
The contingency measures to be considered and, if needed for

maintenance, adopted and implemented; a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation; and, a time limit for action by the state.
The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency measures need to be considered, adopted,
and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a commitment that
the state will implement all measures with respect to the control of
the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of
the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Texas has adopted a
contingency plan for the Beaumont-Port Arthur maintenance area to
address possible future ozone air quality problems. The adopted
contingency plan maintains the same contingency measures included in
the BPA area's first 1997 ozone NAAQS 10-year maintenance plan,
approved by EPA on October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64675). The potential
contingency measures identified by the TCEQ include, but are not
limited to the following:
     Revision to Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 1 or Subchapter E, Division
4, to control rich-burn, gas-fired, reciprocating internal combustion
engines located in the BPA area.
     Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30
TAC Chapter 115 VOC rules for the control of crude and condensate
storage tanks at upstream oil and gas exploration and production sites
or midstream pipeline breakout stations with uncontrolled flash
emissions greater than 25 tons per year.
     Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30
TAC Chapter 115 VOC rules for more stringent controls for tank fittings
on floating roof tanks, such as slotted guidepoles and other openings
on internal and external floating roofs.
     Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30
TAC Chapter 115 VOC rules limiting emissions from landings of floating
roofs in floating roof tanks.
     Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30
TAC Chapter 115 VOC rules for control of VOC emissions from degassing
operations for storage tanks with a nominal capacity of 75,000 gallons
or more storing materials with a true vapor pressure greater than 2.6
pounds per square inch absolute (psia), or with a nominal capacity of
250,000 gallons or more storing materials with a true vapor pressure of
0.5 psia or greater. Degassing vapors from storage vessels, transport
vessels, and marine vessels would be required to vent to a control
device until the VOC concentration of the vapors is reduced to less
than 34,000 parts per million by volume as methane.
     Expand the Texas Low Emission Diesel marine diesel
requirements in 30 TAC Sec.  114.319(c) to include one or more counties
in the BPA area.
    To qualify as a contingency measure, emissions reductions from that
measure must not be factored into the emissions projections used in the
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan provides that a monitored and
certified violation of the NAAQS triggers the requirement to consider,
adopt, and implement the plan's contingency measures. The schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation by the State is no longer
than 18 months following a monitored and certified violation of the
NAAQS.\9\ Given the estimated emissions in the Beaumont nonattainment
area, we believe the proposed contingency measures are sufficient to
address any potential future violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS is violated by any
consecutive three-year average of each annual fourth-highest daily
maximum eight-hour ozone average at or above 85 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCEQ's maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic
components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. As such, EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by the TCEQ on the
basis that it meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.

B. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not cause
or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim
milestones (CAA 176(c)(1)). EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and
federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP.
EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 specifies the conformity criteria for
each transportation action. See Table 1, 40 CFR 93.109.
    The BPA maintenance plan submission includes motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the last year of the maintenance plan (in
this case 2032). MVEBs are used to conduct regional emissions analyses
for transportation conformity purposes. See 40 CFR 93.118. The MVEB is
the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance
demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The South Coast II court decision upheld
EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was effective on April
6, 2015. EPA's current transportation conformity regulation requires a
regional emissions analysis only during the time period beginning one
year after a nonattainment designation for a particular NAAQS until the
effective date of revocation of that NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)).
Therefore, pursuant to the conformity regulation, a regional emissions
analysis using MVEBs is not required for conformity determinations for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS because that NAAQS has been revoked (80 FR 12264).
As no regional emissions analysis is required for the BPA maintenance
area, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be
demonstrated for transportation plans and TIPs by showing that the
remaining criteria contained in Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109, and 40 CFR
93.108 have been met. Therefore, EPA is not taking any action on the
submitted 2032 NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. As noted previously, EPA is proposing to find that
the projected emissions inventory which reflects these budgets are
consistent with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

IV. Proposed Action

    Under section 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set forth above,
based on Texas' representations and commitments set forth above, EPA is
proposing to approve the second maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, submitted by TCEQ on February
5, 2019, as a revision to the Texas SIP. This maintenance plan is
designed to keep the area in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through
the second 10-year maintenance period.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action

merely proposes to approve 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 29, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-12044 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60834]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC08-1-000]

Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

October 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 15, 2007, Southeastern Power
Administration (Southeastern) filed an appeal of the September 25, 2007
decision of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
to include Southeastern Power Administration on the NERC compliance
registry within the SERC Reliability Corporation for the function of
transmission operator and resource planner. Southeastern states that it
has the responsibility to market the electric power generated at
reservoir projects owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in the southeast and neither owns or operates a generation or
transmission system. Southeastern asks the Commission to reverse the
NERC's decision to register Southeastern as a transmission operator and
resource planner.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 14, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21159 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15587-15588]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2524-021]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations,
Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2524-021.
    c. Date filed: November 27, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority.
    e. Name of Project: Salina Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saline Creek
arm of Lake Hudson in the Grand River basin in Mayes County, Oklahoma.
The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Dr. Darrell Townsend, P.O. Box 70, Langley,
Oklahoma 74350-0070;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Stephen Bowler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2524-021.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The existing Salina Pumped Storage Project consists of: (1) The
762-acre W.R. Holway Reservoir (the upper reservoir), with a normal
pool elevation between 850 feet and 865 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum; (2) three rim dikes around the upper reservoir; (3) an 1,800-
foot-long concrete-lined canal; (4) a 336-foot-wide, 62-foot-high
forebay structure; (5) a 2,300-foot-long, 185-foot-high earthen dam;
(6) six 14-foot-

diameter penstocks, each between 630 and 680 feet long; (7) a
powerhouse with six reversible pump-turbine units, each rated at 43.3
megawatt (MW), for a total installed capacity of 260 MW; (8) a
substation; (9) an approximately 6-mile-long, 161-kilovolt transmission
line; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project utilizes Lake Hudson
(the lower reservoir), which is the reservoir for the Grand River Dam
Authority's Markham Ferry Project No. 2183, for pumped storage
operations.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies are also available for
inspection and reproduction at the public libraries in Vinita and
Salina, Oklahoma, and at the Administrative Headquarters of the Grand
River Dam Authority at 226 W. Dwain Willis Avenue, Vinita, Oklahoma.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, preliminary   May 2014.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA.............  November 2014.
Comments on Draft EA...................  December 2014.
Modified Terms and Conditions..........  February 2015.
Commission Issues Final EA.............  May 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water
quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification,
including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the
request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification. On
December 18, 2013, Grand River Dam Authority filed with the Commission
a copy of its request for water quality certification. The copy
included a date stamp and signature from the Oklahoma Department of
Water Quality indicating receipt of the request on December 11, 2013 by
the certifying agency.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06115 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


   EPRI 2011 Accomplishments, Ongoing R&D and Preliminary Plans for 2012

Meeting Agenda:
   * Introductions
   * Meeting purpose/goals
   * EPA questions on EPRI comments or technical reports
   * Status of NODA
   * Review of ongoing research and potential 2012 R&D

Meeting Objective: Opportunity for EPA to ask questions on EPRI 2011 research and on our technical comments on the proposed Rule.  Most importantly, EPRI is formulating its 2012 R&D plan and input from EPA on relevance & importance is considered extremely important by our members.

EPA questions on EPRI technical comments or technical reports:

A list of EPRI submitted reports is on following page.  The following reports were not submitted but are near completion. Copies will be sent when they are available:

Full-time/Seasonal Closed-cycle Cooling: Cost and Performance Comparisons.  Technical Report 1023100, January 2012

Seasonal Patterns of Entrainment for Regional U.S. Electric Generating Facilities.  Technical Report 1023102, January 2012

Fine (2.0 mm) Mesh Screen O&M Evaluation at KCPL's Hawthorn Station on the Missouri River. Technical Report 1024697, January 2012

Additional Life History Parameter Values for Fish Commonly Entrained at Power Plants, Technical Report TBD, March 2012

Questions on EPRI's Technical Comments on the Proposed Rule?
Follow-up questions on EPRI's I&E Survey (annual impingement levels, de minimis level?)

Status & Content of EPA's NODA?

EPRI's Ongoing Research and Potential 2012 R&D:
Ongoing Research:

Updated Fish Protection Technology Manual  -  all technologies (December 2012 delivery)

Effects of fish return flume material and debris presence on survival of fish larvae

Additional testing of fine mesh traveling screens: band screens (0.5 mm) and Beaudrey vacuum (0.5 mm)

New R&D under Consideration:

Protocol for impingement sampling and latent mortality assessment

Procedures/possibilities for control survival monitoring

Field research on impingement survival with new Ristroph band screen

Field research on impingement survival with new Hydrolux molded plastic screen

Additional field evaluation of Beaudrey vacuum screen (question: does EPA view the traveling vacuum screen as fundamentally different from a traditional traveling water screen?)

Screen optimization evaluation (lab and/or field):
* Screen speed
* Pressure effects
* Screen mesh material effects
* Screen design specifications (e.g., seals, flaps)

Research on minimizing cooling tower cycles of concentration

Additional fish return design feature evaluation: water depth, velocity, flume length

Dual flow screen retrofit issues to attain 0.5 fps through screen

Laboratory studies on 1.0 fps through-screen velocity on impingement of representative species (fish swim speeds)

Tools & techniques for measuring approach velocity (as an indirect measure of thru-screen velocity)

Solutions to Entrapment

Methods for demonstrating alternative technology performance equivalence to modified traveling water screens with a fish return system

Updated benefit assessment methodology  -  EPA nonuse survey information to be added(?)

Assessment of potential reasons for low impingement at survey power plants (low 20% of EPRI 2011 Impingement Survey)

Guidance for preparation of entrainment documents

Closed Cycle Cooling Research (check means provided to EPA in our comments):

+ National Cost Estimate for Retrofit of U.S. Power Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling.  Technical Brief 1022212, January 2011.

+ National Cost Estimate for Retrofit of U.S. Power Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling.  Technical Report 1022491, February 2011.

+ Evaluation of the National Financial and Economic Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Requirement. EPRI Technical Report 1022751, July 2011

+ Maintaining Electrical System Reliability under a Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Requirement.  EPRI Technical Report 1023174, July 2011

+ Net Environmental and Social Effects of Retrofitting Power Plants with Once-Through Cooling to Closed-Cycle Cooling.  EPRI Technical Report 1022760, July 2011.

+ National Benefits of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Requirement. EPRI Technical Report 1023401. July 2011

+ Closed-cycle Cooling Retrofit Research Program Results Summary.  EPRI Technical Report 1023453, July 2011

Cooling Water Intake Reports:

   +    Do Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment Cause Adverse Changes in Fish Populations? A Review of the Scientific Evidence.  Technical Report 1023094, July 2011

   +    National and Regional Summary of Impingement and Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish based on an Industry Survey of Clean Water Act §316(b) Characterization Studies.  Technical Report 1019861, July 2011

   +    Laboratory Evaluation of the Beaudrey WIP Screen for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at
Cooling Water Intake Structures.  Technical Report 1019864, April 2011

   +    Potential Entrainment of Dead or Moribund Fish Eggs and Larvae at Cooling Water Intake Structures. Technical Report 1019860, May 2011

   +    Bioindicators of Performance and Impingement Susceptibility of Gizzard and Threadfin Shad.  Technical Report 1023101, May 2011

   +    Laboratory Evaluation of Fine-mesh Traveling Water Screens. Technical Report 1019027, December 2010.

   +    Evaluation of Factors Affecting Juvenile and Larval Fish Survival in Fish Return Systems at Cooling Water Intakes. Technical Report 1021372, December 2010.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64977-64978]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-81-000]

Frontier Utilities New York LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Frontier Utilities New York LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 6, 2012.
    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 Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26108 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 65573-65576]
[DOCID:fr10de09-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61110; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Consisting of (i)
Amendments to Rule G-8 (Books and Records To Be Made by Brokers,
Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers), Rule G-9 (Preservation of
Records), and Rule G-11 (New Issue Syndicate Practices); (ii) a
Proposed Interpretation of Rule G-17 (Conduct of Municipal Securities
Activities); and (iii) the Deletion of a Previous Rule G-17
Interpretive Notice

December 3, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 18, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of (i) proposed amendments to Rule G-8 (books and records to
be made by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers), Rule G-9
(preservation of records), and Rule G-11, (new issue syndicate
practices); (ii) a proposed interpretation (the ``proposed interpretive
notice'') of Rule G-17 (conduct of municipal securities activities);
and (iii) the deletion of a previous Rule G-17 interpretive notice on
priority of orders dated December 22, 1987 (the ``1987 interpretive
notice''). The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change become
effective for new issues of municipal securities for which the Time of
Formal Award (as defined in Rule G-34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a)) occurs more than
60 days after approval of the proposed rule change by the SEC.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site (http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/sec.asp), at the MSRB's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed amendments to Rule G-11 would: (1) Apply the rule to
all primary offerings, not just those for which a syndicate is formed;
(2) require that all dealers (not just syndicate members) disclose
whether their orders are for their own account or a related account;
and (3) require that priority be given to orders from customers over
orders from syndicate members for their own accounts or orders from
their respective related accounts, to the extent feasible and
consistent with the orderly distribution of securities in the offering,
unless the issuer otherwise agrees or it is in the best interests of
the syndicate not to follow that order of priority.
    The proposed amendments to Rules G-8 and G-9 would require that
records be retained for all primary offerings of: (1) All orders,
whether or not filled; (2) whether there was a retail order period and,
if so, the issuer's definition of ``retail;'' and (3) those instances
when the syndicate manager allocated bonds other than in accordance
with the priority provisions of Rule G-11 and the specific reasons why
it was in the best interests of the syndicate to do so.
    The proposed interpretive notice would provide that violation of
these priority provisions would be a violation of Rule G-17, subject to
the same exceptions as provided in proposed amended Rule G-11. It also
would provide that Rule G-17 does not require that customer orders be
accorded greater priority than orders from dealers that are not
syndicate members or their respective related accounts. The proposed
interpretive notice also would provide that it would be a violation of
Rule G-17 for a dealer to allocate securities in a manner that is
inconsistent with an issuer's requirements for a retail order period
without the issuer's consent. Issuance of the notice, in addition to
the amendments to Rule G-11, is consistent with previous guidance
issued by the Board that all activities of dealers must be viewed in
light of the basic fair dealing principles of Rule G-17, regardless of
whether other MSRB rules establish additional requirements on
dealers.\3\
    The guidance set forth in the proposed interpretive notice arose
out of the Board's ongoing review of its General Rules as well as
concerns expressed by institutional investors that their orders were
sometimes not filled in whole or in part during a primary offering, yet
the bonds became available shortly thereafter in the secondary market.
They attributed that problem to two causes: first, some retail dealers
were allowed to place orders in retail order periods without going away
orders and second, syndicate members, their affiliates, and their
respective related accounts were allowed to buy bonds in the primary
offering for their own account even though other orders remained
unfilled. There was also concern that these two factors could
contribute to restrictions on access to new issues by retail investors,
in a manner inconsistent with the issuer's intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MSRB Notice 2009-42 (July 14, 2009)--Guidance on Disclosure
and Other Sales Practice Obligations to Individual and Other Retail
Investors in Municipal Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB had last addressed the priority of orders in the 1987
interpretive notice.\4\ That guidance interpreted Rule G-17 to require
generally that customer orders be filled before orders from dealers and
dealer-related accounts. Dealer-related accounts were defined to
``include a municipal securities investment portfolio, arbitrage
account, or secondary trading account of a syndicate member, a
municipal securities investment trust sponsored by a syndicate member,
or an accumulation account established in connection with such a
municipal securities investment trust.'' The notice did not limit the
ability of the syndicate manager to

allocate away from the priority provisions of the syndicate if to do so
would be in the best interests of the syndicate. The Board determined
to update the guidance provided in the 1987 interpretive notice due to
changes in the marketplace and subsequent amendments to Rule G-11. The
proposed interpretive notice will supersede the 1987 interpretive
notice, which will be deleted as part of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 1987 interpretive notice was filed with the SEC on
December 22, 1987 for immediate effectiveness. See File No. SR-MSRB-
1987-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\5\ which provides that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule changes and proposed
interpretive notice are consistent with the Act because they will
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and protect
investors and the public interest.

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

    The MSRB does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to all dealers.

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

    On August 11, 2009, the MSRB published for comment the proposed
amendments and proposed interpretive notice that comprise the proposed
rule change.\6\ The MSRB received comments from five commentators.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See MSRB Notice 2009-47 (August 11, 2009).
    \7\ Letters from: Carl Giles, Managing Director, First Southwest
Company (``First Southwest''), to Peg Henry, MSRB, dated September
10, 2009; Letter from Lynn Hampton, Vice President for Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(``MWAA''), to Ronald A. Stack, MSRB Chair, dated August 18, 2009;
Letter from Michael Decker and Mike Nicholas, Co-Chief Executive
Officers, Regional Bond Dealers Association (``RBDA''), to Ms.
Henry, dated September 11, 2009; Letter from Leon J. Bijou, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), to Ms. Henry, dated
September 11, 2009; and Letter from Napoleon Brandford, III,
Chairman, Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., L.L.C. (``Siebert''), to
Ms. Henry, dated September 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Southwest Letter

    First Southwest supported the proposed amendments to Rule G-11, in
particular: (1) The change that would require all dealers to disclose
whether their orders are for their own accounts or related accounts and
(2) the changes that would require that underwriters give priority to
customer orders. It characterized the practice of filling dealer orders
or related account orders before customer orders as ``front running''
and supported the changes to Rule G-11 to strengthen the prohibition
against front running.
    First Southwest assumed that one of the Board's goals in publishing
Notice 2009-47 was to address flipping and said that the Board should
go further by addressing flipping by non-syndicate members, hedge
funds, investment advisors, mutual funds, bank portfolios, tender
option bond (TOB) programs, and institutional investors. They suggested
that the Board undertake a thorough study of flipping and, if
appropriate, make recommendations for the regulation of this practice.
They suggested that the following questions be addressed: (1) Do
purchasers of bonds from a primary offering have the right to sell
their bonds at any time? (2) Do purchasers of bonds from a primary
offering have a right to take an immediate profit when possible? (3) Do
flippers provide liquidity to the municipal marketplace? (4) Is
flipping a case of demand being greater than supply thereby creating
price discovery?

MWAA Letter

    MWAA was supportive of the proposals regarding retail order periods
in the proposed interpretive notice. They said that they enforce their
retail order periods and, in particular, check for flipping. They said
that they prefer that retail firms participate in the selling group,
rather than buying during the institutional sales order period and
marking up the bonds for their retail clients. Their letter did not
address the proposed rule amendments.

Siebert Letter

    Siebert commented on the proposed interpretive notice, stating that
the retail order period process had broken down because few issuers
were enforcing it. They said that some syndicate members submit large
orders that they describe as bundled retail orders and that some
institutional investors characterize their orders as retail, when in
fact they probably are not. They said that some underwriting firms
(primary book-runners) have formed arrangements with other firms to
``funnel'' bonds at the full, or split, takedown out of the syndicate,
characterizing these orders as retail, rather than more appropriately
as selling group orders. They said they were in full support of the
concerns expressed by institutional investors and of enforcement of the
underwriting rules governing fair dealing.

RBDA Letter

    RBDA assumed that the proposed interpretive notice and proposed
amendments to Rule G-11 were directed at flipping and said that much
flipping is done by institutional investors, which the proposed
interpretive notice would not address. They said that a dealer that
submits retail orders during a retail order period without bona fide
orders from retail customers already violates Rule G-17, which it said
may be enforced through strict enforcement of existing rules and
interpretations. They said that it is not always possible for a dealer
to know whether an order is truly retail, for example if it comes from
a bank trust department or a third party asset manager.
    RBDA said that the proposed definition of ``affiliate'' and
``related account'' were too broad and would capture investor accounts
that might be sufficiently independent to warrant treatment similar to
unaffiliated customers. They suggested that the Board consider an
alternative definition based on Rule G-14, such that if a trade would
be required to be reported to RTRS without a special trade indicator,
the investor would not be considered an affiliate or related account.
    They also said that the proposed amendments would establish new
recordkeeping rules for secondary market trading accounts.

SIFMA Letter

    SIFMA opposed the proposed amendments to Rule G-11, arguing that
they would disrupt the process of allocating securities. They objected
to a rule that is focused only on underwriters, their affiliates, and
related accounts, which they said would not eliminate front running and
the ``placing of phantom [retail] orders.'' They said that the proposed
amendments would add nothing that is not already prohibited under Rule
G-17, which applies to all dealers, whether they are syndicate members
or not. They said that dealers maintain records of orders, allotments,
trade reporting data, and trade confirmations, which are used

by FINRA to audit violations of Rule G-17. They ``urge[d] FINRA to
vigorously enforce existing laws and regulations to prevent front
running, placing phantom orders and all other deceptive, dishonest or
unfair practices.''
    SIFMA said that the proposed amendments to Rule G-11 would have
detrimental effects on the process of allocating securities. They said
that the amendments would reduce competition and result in higher
borrowing costs. They said that the proposed amendments would interfere
with the discretion afforded to syndicate managers by current Rule G-
11.
    SIFMA also said that the proposed amendments would not be
consistent with FINRA's proposed rule on fixed price offerings, which
they said would permit sales to affiliates as long as the sale was not
at a discount.
    SIFMA supported the proposed interpretive notice, which they
characterized as providing more flexibility than the proposed rule
changes.

Response to Comment Letters

    Most of the commentators assumed that the purpose of the proposed
rule change was the prevention of flipping.\8\ Some of the commentators
\9\ then objected to the proposed amendments and, in RBDA's case, the
proposed interpretive notice, on the grounds that they would not
successfully eliminate flipping. Some of the commentators \10\ also
stated that the filling of dealer orders in advance of customer orders
constituted front-running and was already prohibited under SEC rules.
The Board's objective in proposing the rule change is the broader
distribution of municipal securities, rather than the elimination of
flipping. Rule G-11 was designed to address the concerns expressed by
Congress that the ``economic power accruing to banks by virtue of their
role as major consumers as well as underwriters of new issue municipals
has led to a loose set of syndicate rules which permit banks to be
underwriter distributors of new issues of municipal bonds and in the
same issue give their own investment portfolio the prerogatives and
priorities of public institutional orders.'' \11\ Although Congress
specifically focused on bank-related portfolios, the MSRB saw no reason
to distinguish for purposes of Rule G-11 between such portfolios, on
the one hand, and affiliated investment trusts or related portfolios of
securities firms, on the other.\12\ The Board determined that it was
appropriate to address potential abuses in the allocation of securities
to customers at this time and that the Board would consider the other
issues raised by the commentators as noted above in the context of its
broader ongoing review of its fair practice and other rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See letters from First Southwest, MWAA, RBDA, and SIFMA.
    \9\ See letters from RBDA and SIFMA.
    \10\ See letters from First Southwest and SIFMA.
    \11\ S. Rep. No. 94-75, at 49 (1975).
    \12\ See Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule G-11 on Syndicate
Practices--MSRB Rule G-11, [1977-1987 Transfer Binder] MSRB Manual
(CCH) at 10,363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only two of the comment letters expressly addressed the proposed
amendments to Rule G-8 and Rule G-9. SIFMA suggested that existing
recordkeeping rules were adequate to permit enforcement of Rule G-17 if
vigorously enforced by FINRA. However, existing Rule G-9 does not
require retention of records of unfilled orders, which limits the
ability of FINRA to effectively surveil for compliance with these
requirements. The Board determined that the proposed amendments to G-8
and G-9 are necessary to permit proper enforcement of the proposed rule
change. Although RBDA commented that the proposed rule change would
impose new recordkeeping requirements on secondary market trading
accounts, the proposed rule change would merely move the existing
recordkeeping requirements for such accounts to a new subsection of
Rule G-8.
    The Board determined that the RBDA proposal to define ``affiliate''
based on Rule G-14 trade reporting concepts was not advisable, because
it would result in a weakening of existing guidance in that a dealer's
proprietary account would be considered ``related,'' while a dealer's
TOB account would not.
    The Board did not agree with the SIFMA comment letter that the
proposed interpretive notice is more flexible than the proposed
amendments to Rule G-11, noting that the language in the proposed
interpretive notice supposedly providing more flexibility--``to the
extent feasible and consistent with the orderly distribution of
securities in a primary offering''--is also contained in the proposed
amendments to Rule G-11. The Board also did not agree that the proposed
amendments to Rule G-11 would have detrimental effects on the process
of allocating securities or that the amendments would reduce
competition and result in higher borrowing costs. The Board also did
not agree that the proposed amendments would interfere with the
discretion afforded to syndicate managers by current Rule G-11, noting
that neither the proposed amendments to Rule G-11 nor the proposed
interpretive notice would preclude the allocation of securities to
underwriters for their own accounts or their related accounts, because
exceptions are provided if the issuer consents or the syndicate manager
concludes that it is in the best interests of the syndicate to do so
and properly documents that decision. Finally, with regard to SIFMA's
comment on the proposed FINRA fixed price offering rule, there is no
comparable fixed price offering rule for municipal securities.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change become effective
for new issues of municipal securities for which the Time of Formal
Award (as defined in Rule G-34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a)) occurs more than 60
days after approval of the proposed rule change by the SEC.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2009-17. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-17 and should be submitted on or before
December 31, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29420 Filed 12-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P