[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43604-43606]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3611]

Joint Pediatric Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a
Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee
and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to
FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA
is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 27, 2019, from 8:30 a.m.
to 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Building 31, Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm.
1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked
questions including information regarding special accommodations due to
a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-3611. The docket will close on
September 25, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on
this public meeting by September 25, 2019. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of September 25, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before September 13, 2019, will be provided
to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications of information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-3611 for ``Joint Pediatric Advisory Committee and Drug
Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marieann Brill, Office of the
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 32, Rm. 5154, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On September 27, 2019, the Pediatric Advisory Committee and
the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee will meet to
discuss a pediatric-focused safety review of neuropsychiatric events
with use of Singulair (montelukast).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
September 20, 2019. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
September 12, 2019. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 13,
2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Marieann Brill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17996 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50199-50204]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20320]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67657; File No. SR-BATS-2012-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by BATS
Exchange, Inc. To Amend BATS Rules Related to Price Sliding
Functionality

August 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 3, 2012, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9, entitled ``Orders and
Modifiers'', and Rule 21.1, entitled ``Definitions'', to modify the
operation of the Exchange's price sliding functionality described in
Rules 11.9 and 21.1 applicable to the BATS equity securities trading
platform (``BATS Equities'') and the BATS equity options trading
platform (``BATS Options''), respectively. The Exchange also proposes
other minor changes, including changes to the terms used to describe
price sliding and cross-references contained in Rules 11.13, 21.1, 21.6
and 21.9.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Background
    The Exchange currently offers various forms of sliding which, in
all cases, result in the re-pricing of an order to, or ranking and/or
display of an order at, a price other than an order's limit price in
order to comply with applicable securities laws and/or Exchange rules.
Specifically, the Exchange currently offers price sliding to ensure
compliance with Regulation NMS and Regulation SHO for BATS Equities, as
well as price sliding for BATS Options to ensure compliance rules
analogous to Regulation NMS adopted by the Exchange and other options
exchanges. Price sliding currently offered by the Exchange re-prices
and displays an order upon entry and in certain cases again re-prices
and re-displays an order at a more aggressive price one time if and
when permissible, but does not continually re-price an order based on
changes in the national best bid (``NBB'') or national best offer
(``NBO'', and together with the NBB, the ``NBBO''). The Exchange
proposes to modify all forms of price sliding in order to create an
optional order handling behavior functionality that will continue to
re-price, re-rank and/or re-display an order based on changes to the
NBBO (``multiple price sliding''), as further described below. Multiple
price sliding in all contexts for which it is being proposed will have
to be elected by a User \5\ in order to be applied by the Exchange. If
a User elects to apply multiple price sliding to an order submitted to
BATS Equities, multiple price sliding will apply with respect to both
display-price sliding and short sale price sliding in connection with
the handling of the order by the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes
to add language to make clear that display-price sliding is based on
Protected Quotations \6\ at equities markets and

options exchanges other than the Exchange. If the Exchange has a
Protected Quotation that an incoming order to the Exchange locks or
crosses then such order either executes against the resting order, or,
if the incoming order is a BATS Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at
Limit Order, such order is executed in accordance with Rules 11.9(c)(6)
and (c)(7), respectively, or cancelled back to the entering User, as
described in further detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(cc), a User is ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
    \6\ As defined in BATS Rule 1.5(t), applicable to BATS Equities,
a ``Protected Quotation'' is ``a quotation that is a Protected Bid
or Protected Offer.'' In turn, the term ``Protected Bid'' or
``Protected Offer'' means ``a bid or offer in a stock that is (i)
displayed by an automated trading center; (ii) disseminated pursuant
to an effective national market system plan; and (iii) an automated
quotation that is the best bid or best offer of a national
securities exchange or association.'' As defined in BATS Rule 27.1,
applicable to BATS Options, a ``Protected Quotation'' is ``a
Protected Bid or Protected Offer.'' In turn, the term ``Protected
Bid'' or ``Protected Offer'' means ``a Bid or Offer in an options
series, respectively, that: (A) Is disseminated pursuant to the OPRA
Plan; and (B) is the Best Bid or Best Offer, respectively, displayed
by an Eligible Exchange.'' An ``Eligible Exchange'' is defined in
Rule 27.1 and means ``a national securities exchange registered with
the SEC in accordance with Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act that:
(a) Is a Participant Exchange in OCC (as that term is defined in
Section VII of the OCC by-laws); (b) is a party to the OPRA Plan (as
that term is described in Section I of the OPRA Plan); and (c) if
the national securities exchange chooses not to become a party to
this Plan, is a participant in another plan approved by the
Commission providing for comparable Trade-Through and Locked and
Crossed Market protection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATS Equities--Display-Price Sliding
    With respect to price sliding offered to ensure compliance with
Regulation NMS (``display-price sliding''),\7\ under the Exchange's
current rules for BATS Equities, if, at the time of entry, a non-
routable order would cross a Protected Quotation displayed by another
trading center the Exchange re-prices and ranks such order at the
locking price, and displays such order at one minimum price variation
below the NBO for bids and above the NBB for offers. Similarly, in the
event a non-routable order that, at the time of entry, would lock a
Protected Quotation displayed by another trading center, the Exchange
displays such order at one minimum price variation below the NBO for
bids and above the NBB for offers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange's Rules for BATS Equities currently describe
this functionality as ``NMS price sliding'' but the Exchange
proposes to rename such functionality ``display-price sliding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of display-price sliding, assume the Exchange has a
posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at
$10.10 per share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100 shares at
$10.13 per share. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange
receives a non-routable bid to buy 100 shares at $10.12 per share the
Exchange will rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at
$10.11 because displaying the bid at $10.12 would lock an external
market's Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to
$10.13, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy and display it at
its ranked price (and limit price) of $10.12.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the description of price sliding to
make clear that price sliding is generally applied to orders that are
eligible for display, as such orders would violate Rule 610(d) of
Regulation NMS if they were displayed by the Exchange at a price that
locked or crossed a Protected Quotation. As described in further detail
below, certain price sliding is also applied to Non-Displayed Orders,
and the Exchange has proposed certain changes intended to clarify the
application of such price sliding.
    The Exchange currently permits Users to instruct the Exchange not
to apply price sliding functionality to their orders. As one variation
of this instruction, the Exchange currently allows Users to elect to
apply display-price sliding only to the extent a display-eligible order
at the time of entry would create a violation of Rule 610(d) of
Regulation NMS by locking a Protected Quotation of an external market
(``lock-only display-price sliding''). For Users that select this order
handling, price sliding is not applied and any display-eligible order
is instead cancelled if, upon entry, such order would create a
violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS by crossing a Protected
Quotation of an external market. The lock-only display-price sliding
option is a variation of display-price sliding that is intended to
allow Users to re-evaluate their orders and/or strategies in the event
they are submitting orders to the Exchange that are crossing the
market. Consistent with the goal of increasing the clarity of its price
sliding rule, the Exchange proposes to modify its description of
display-price sliding to clearly define the lock-only display-price
sliding option.
    As an example of lock-only display-price sliding, assume the
Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security
priced at $10.10 per share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100
shares at $10.14 per share. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the
Exchange receives a non-routable bid to buy 100 shares at $10.13 per
share and the User has elected lock-only display-price sliding, the
Exchange will cancel the order back to the User. To reiterate a basic
example of display-price sliding, if instead the User applied display-
price sliding (and not lock-only display-price sliding), the Exchange
would rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at $10.11
because displaying the bid at $10.13 would cross an external market's
Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to $10.13,
the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy and display it at $10.12.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the description of display-price
sliding so that any order subject to display-price sliding will retain
its original limit price irrespective of the prices at which such order
is ranked and displayed. Accordingly, the Exchange also proposes to
clarify language throughout its descriptions of display-price sliding
to refer to the ranking and display of an order rather than using the
term re-price. In order to ensure compliance with Regulation NMS, as it
does today, the Exchange will rank orders subject to display-price
sliding at the locking price and will display such orders at one
minimum price variation below the current NBO (for bids) or to one
minimum price variation above the current NBB (for offers).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its existing description of
display-price sliding to state that when an order is displayed by the
Exchange through the display-price sliding process the Exchange will
display such order at the most aggressive permissible price. The
Exchange's current description of display-price sliding states that
orders that are re-displayed by the Exchange receive new timestamps
when this new display price is established. The Exchange proposes to
retain this language but also to make clear that all orders that are
re-ranked and re-displayed pursuant to display-price sliding will
retain their priority as compared to other orders subject to display-
price sliding based upon the time such orders were initially received
by the Exchange. Finally, the proposed description of price sliding
also states that following the initial ranking and display of an order
subject to display-price sliding, an order will only be re-ranked and
re-displayed to the extent it achieves a more aggressive price.
    In order to offer multiple price sliding to Exchange Users, the
Exchange proposes to make clear that the ranked and displayed prices of
an order subject to display-price sliding may be adjusted once or
multiple times depending upon the instructions of a User and changes to
the prevailing NBBO. As noted above, multiple price sliding is optional
and must be explicitly selected by a User before it will be applied.
The Exchange proposes to make clear that the default display-price
sliding process will only adjust the ranked and displayed prices of an
order upon entry and then the displayed price one time following a
change to the prevailing NBBO. As explained throughout this filing,
orders subject to multiple price sliding will be permitted to move all
the way back to

their most aggressive price, whereas orders subject to the current
handling may not be adjusted to their most aggressive price, depending
upon market conditions.
    As an example of multiple price sliding, assume the Exchange has a
posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at
$10.10 per share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100 shares at
$10.14 per share. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange
receives a non-routable bid to buy 100 shares at $10.13 per share, the
Exchange would rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at
$10.11 because displaying the bid at $10.13 would cross an external
market's Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to
$10.13, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy, rank it at $10.13
and display it at $10.12. Under current price sliding functionality,
the Exchange would not further adjust the ranked or displayed price
following this un-slide. However, under multiple price sliding, if the
NBO then moved to $10.14, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy
and display it at its full limit price of $10.13.
    The Exchange offers display-price sliding functionality to avoid
locking or crossing other markets' Protected Quotations, but does not
price slide to avoid executions on the Exchange's order book (``BATS
Book'').\8\ Specifically, when the Exchange receives an incoming order
that could execute against resting displayed liquidity but an execution
does not occur because such incoming order is designated as an order
that will not remove liquidity (i.e., a BATS Post Only Order),\9\ then
the Exchange will cancel the incoming order. The Exchange proposes to
make clear in the description of display-price sliding that any
display-eligible BATS Post Only Order that locks or crosses a Protected
Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will not be price slid
upon entry but will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.9(c)(6) or
cancelled. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to make clear that any
display-eligible Partial Post Only at Limit Order that locks or crosses
a Protected Quotation displayed by the Exchange upon entry will be
executed as set forth in Rule 11.9(c)(7) or cancelled. The Exchange
also proposes to make clear that any display-eligible BATS Post Only
Order or Partial Post Only at Limit Order that locks or crosses a
Protected Quotation displayed by an external market upon entry will be
subject to the display-price sliding process. Consistent with the
principal of not price sliding to avoid executions, in the event the
NBBO changes such that a BATS Post Only Order subject to display-price
sliding would un-slide and would be ranked at a price at which it could
remove displayed liquidity from the BATS Book (i.e., when the Exchange
is at the NBB or NBO) the Exchange proposes to execute \10\ or cancel
such order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it inadvertently constructed an
example in a previous rule filing that contradicts this statement.
Specifically, in Example 5 of SR-BATS-2011-015, in order to
establish the possibility of an order that has been price slid and
has a working price ranked at the same price as an order displayed
by the Exchange on the opposite side of the market, the Exchange
explained that an incoming BATS Post Only bid at $10.11 would price
slide if it locked an offer displayed by the Exchange at $10.11. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64475 (May 12, 2011), 76 FR
28830, 28832 (May 18, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-015) (the ``Order Handling
Filing''). However, at the time of the Order Handling Filing, under
the current behavior, and as proposed, the Exchange would not price
slide a BATS Post Only order to avoid an execution against an order
displayed by the Exchange. The Exchange notes that Example 5 from
the Order Handling Filing would be accurate if instead the incoming
bid at $10.11 locked a protected offer displayed by an external
market and not also displayed by the Exchange, was price slid and
displayed at $10.10, ranked at $10.11, and BATS subsequently
received a BATS Post Only offer at $10.11. In other words, the
outcome would be the same as set forth in Example 5, insofar as the
price slid order could ultimately have a ranked price that locks the
contra-side, however the sequence leading up to that outcome neither
is nor was possible as described because the Exchange does not price
slide to avoid executions against the BATS Book.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that it recently proposed and implemented
a change to Rule 11.9(c)(6) regarding the Exchange's handling of
BATS Post Only Orders to permit such orders to remove liquidity from
the BATS Book if the value of price improvement associated with such
execution equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such
execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the
order posted to the BATS Book and subsequently provided liquidity.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67093 (June 1, 2012), 77 FR
33798 (June 7, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-018).
    \10\ As noted above, the Exchange will execute a BATS Post Only
Order in certain circumstances where it would receive price
improvement. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange previously proposed changes to its existing order
handling procedures to permit BATS Post Only Orders to be posted to the
BATS Book to join the NBB or NBO, as applicable, even when such orders
would be posted at prices equal to opposite-side orders ranked at the
same price.\11\ Consistent with this previously adopted change, the
Exchange proposes to add language stating that BATS Post Only Orders
will be permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of
orders subject to display-price sliding. As is the case today, in the
event an order subject to display-price sliding is ranked on the BATS
Book with a price equal to an opposite side order displayed by the
Exchange, it will be subject to processing as set forth in Rule
11.13(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Order Handling Filing, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of the Exchange's handling of BATS Post Only Orders
in the context of price sliding, assume the Exchange has a posted and
displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.10 per
share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100 shares at $10.12 per
share. Assume the NBBO (including Protected Quotations of other
external markets) is also $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange receives a
BATS Post Only Order bid to buy 100 shares at $10.12 per share, unless
executed pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(6),\12\ the Exchange would cancel the
order back to the User because absent the BATS Post Only designation
the $10.12 bid would be able to remove the $10.12 offer, and, as
explained above, the Exchange does not offer price sliding to avoid
executions against orders displayed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange did not have a displayed offer to sell at $10.12 in
the example above, but instead the best offer on the Exchange's book
was $10.13, the Exchange would apply price sliding to the incoming bid
by ranking such order at $10.12 and displaying the order at $10.11. The
Exchange's order book would now be displayed as $10.11 by $10.13.
Assume, however, that after price sliding the incoming bid from $10.12
to a display price of $10.11, the Exchange received a BATS Post Only
offer to sell for $10.12, thus joining the NBO. As noted above,
pursuant to previously adopted changes, BATS Post Only Orders are
permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders
subject to display-price sliding. Accordingly, the Exchange would allow
such the incoming BATS Post Only offer at $10.12 to post and display on
the Exchange's order book, as described above, with an opposite side
price slid order ranked at $10.12 but displayed at $10.11. Assume that
next the Protected Offers displayed by all external markets other than
the Exchange moved to $10.13. In this situation the Exchange would un-
slide but then cancel the bid at $10.12 because, as proposed, in the
event the NBBO changes such that a BATS Post Only Order subject to
display-price sliding would un-slide and would be ranked at a price at
which it could remove displayed liquidity from the BATS Book (i.e.,
when the Exchange is at the NBB or NBO) the Exchange

proposes to execute \13\ or cancel such order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted above, the Exchange will execute a BATS Post Only
Order in certain circumstances where it would receive price
improvement. See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently applies display-price sliding to Non-
Displayed Orders that cross Protected Quotations of external markets as
well. The Exchange proposes language that makes clear that this
functionality is offered both upon entry and once an order has been
posted to the Exchange's order book in order to avoid potentially
trading through Protected Quotations of external markets. The proposed
rule states that Non-Displayed Orders that are subject to display-price
sliding are ranked at the locking price on entry. The proposed
description also makes clear that display-price sliding for Non-
Displayed Orders is functionally equivalent to the handling of
displayable orders except that such orders will not have a displayed
price and will not be re-priced again unless such orders cross a
Protected Quotation of an external market (i.e., such orders are not
unslid).
    As an example of the Exchange's handling of Non-Displayed Orders in
the context of price sliding, assume the Exchange has a posted and
displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.10 per
share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100 shares at $10.13 per
share. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11. If the Exchange receives a
Non-Displayed Order bid to buy 100 shares at $10.12 per share, the
Exchange would re-price the order to a $10.11 bid to buy to avoid
potentially trading through the $10.11 offer displayed as the NBO
(i.e., to ensure the Exchange will not allow the bid to trade at $10.12
per share). In the event the NBBO moved to $10.09 by $10.10, the
Exchange would again re-price the Non-Displayed bid to buy 100 shares
to $10.10 per share. If the NBBO then moved to $10.10 by $10.11, the
Non-Displayed bid would not be re-priced to $10.11, but would remain on
the Exchange's order book at $10.10.
    As described above, the Exchange has proposed to offer multiple
price sliding to Exchange Users that opt-in to the functionality. The
remaining changes described above are intended to clarify and expand
upon the written description of display-price sliding, but do not
represent changes to the existing functionality offered by the
Exchange. Consistent with achieving better clarity, the Exchange has
proposed structural changes to the description of display-price sliding
by separating the description into several sub-paragraphs.
BATS Equities--Short Sale Price Sliding
    With respect to price sliding offered to ensure compliance with
Regulation SHO on BATS Equities (``short sale price sliding''), when an
order cannot be executed or displayed in compliance with Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO,\14\ the Exchange currently re-prices short sale orders
to one minimum price variation above the current NBB (``Permitted
Price''). In order to describe this re-pricing, the Exchange proposes
to add the term ``Permitted Price'' to its description of short sale
price sliding. In order to offer multiple price sliding in the short
sale price sliding context, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to
state that depending upon the instructions of a User, to reflect
declines in the NBB the System will continue to re-price a short sale
order at the Permitted Price down to the order's original limit price.
Accordingly, short sale orders subject to multiple price sliding that
are adjusted to lower price levels due to a decline to the NBB will be
priced at one minimum price variation above the current NBB. As is true
for display-price sliding, multiple price sliding is optional and must
be explicitly selected by a User before it will be applied. The
Exchange's default short sale sliding process will only re-price an
order upon entry. Accordingly, there will be no change to existing
Users of short sale price sliding due to the proposed introduction of
multiple price sliding unless such Users opt-in to the functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example of the Exchange's current short sale price sliding,
which adjusts the price of an order only upon entry, assume the
Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security
priced at $10.10 per share and a posted and displayed offer to sell 100
shares at $10.13 per share.\15\ Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If
the Exchange receives a non-routable offer to sell 100 shares at $10.10
per share and the order is marked ``short'' the Exchange will rank and
display the order to sell at $10.11 because executing the short sale at
$10.10, the NBB, would be in contravention of Regulation SHO. The
result would be the same if the Exchange had no bids at $10.10 because
the Exchange cannot display an order marked ``short'' at the current
NBB (such display would also lock the protected quote of an external
market). If the NBB then moved to $10.09, under existing handling, the
Exchange would not re-price or re-display the order, but instead would
leave it as a displayed offer to sell 100 shares at $10.11. Under
multiple price sliding, however, the Exchange would re-price and
display the offer at $10.10 if the NBB moved to $10.09. If, in the
example above, the NBB instead moved upwards to $10.11, the Exchange
would not re-price or restrict execution of the resting $10.11 offer
under either type of short sale price sliding. The Exchange notes that
if this were the case, its quotation would be locked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of these examples, Rule 201's short sale price
test is assumed to be in effect for the security at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to changes to the description of short sale price
sliding to add the option of multiple price sliding, the Exchange
proposes various changes to improve the accuracy and the clarity of the
description of short sale price sliding. For instance, the Exchange
proposes to make clear that when a short sale price test restriction
under Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is in effect, the System may execute a
displayed short sale order at a price below the Permitted Price if, at
the time of initial display of the short sale order, the order was at a
price above the then current NBB. The Exchange also proposes to make
clear that orders marked ``short exempt'' will not be subject to short
sale price sliding.
BATS Options--Display-Price Sliding
    In order to maintain consistency between analogous processes
offered by BATS Equities and BATS Options, the Exchange proposes to
modify the rules of BATS Options to conform with the changes described
above related to display-price sliding. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes deleting the current description of price sliding from Rule
21.1(d)(6), and adopting new Rule 21.1(h), which is based on Rule 11.9,
as amended. Proposed Rule 21.1(h) relates to display-price sliding \16\
offered to ensure compliance with locked and crossed market rules
relevant to participation on BATS Options. As proposed, in order to
adopt multiple price sliding for BATS Options display-price sliding,
Rule 21.1(h) will provide that the ranked and displayed prices of an
order subject to display-price sliding may be adjusted once or multiple
times depending upon the instructions of a User and changes to the
prevailing NBBO. As is true for BATS Equities, display-price sliding
for BATS Options will default to the current functionality

pursuant to which the ranked and displayed prices of an order will be
adjusted upon entry and then the displayed price will be adjusted one
time following a change to the prevailing NBBO. Users will need to opt-
in to multiple price sliding functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange's Rules for BATS Options currently describe
this functionality as ``displayed price sliding'' but the Exchange
proposes to rename such functionality ``display-price sliding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As drafted, Rule 21.1(h) is identical to the description of
display-price sliding set forth in proposed Rule 11.9 and described
above with the exception of minor references necessary due to the
difference between rules applicable to BATS Equities and BATS Options,
the omission of certain rule text specific to non-displayed orders,
which are applicable to BATS Equities only, and the omission of
reference to the specific order handling process for BATS Equities
described in Rule 11.13(a)(1).
    In addition to the adoption of Rule 21.1(h), the Exchange proposes
to delete a portion of the display-price sliding process that is
described in Rule 21.1(d)(8), which states that an order that would
cross a Protected Quotation will be re-priced to the locking price and
ranked in the BATS Options Book. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
this language because it is duplicative with the proposed language in
Rule 21.1(h). The Exchange also proposes to modify applicable cross-
references in Rules 21.1(d), 21.6 and 21.9.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\
because it is 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to price sliding
are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ as well as Rule 610
of Regulation NMS \20\ and Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.\21\ The Exchange
is not modifying the overall functionality of price sliding, which, to
avoid locking or crossing quotations of other market centers or to
comply with applicable short sale restrictions, displays orders at
permissible prices while retaining a price at which the User is willing
to buy or sell, in the event display at such price or an execution at
such price becomes possible. Instead, the Exchange is making changes to
adopt an optional form of price sliding, multiple price sliding, and to
clarify portions of its Rules that describe price sliding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 17 CFR 242.610.
    \21\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 610(d) requires exchanges to establish, maintain, and enforce
rules that require members reasonably to avoid ``[d]isplaying
quotations that lock or cross any protected quotation in an NMS
stock.'' \22\ Such rules must be ``reasonably designed to assure the
reconciliation of locked or crossed quotations in an NMS stock,'' and
must ``prohibit * * * members from engaging in a pattern or practice of
displaying quotations that lock or cross any quotation in an NMS
stock.'' \23\ Thus, display-price sliding offered by the Exchange,
including the functionality offered for BATS Options, assists Users by
displaying orders at permissible prices. Similarly, Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO \24\ requires trading centers to establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent the execution or display of a short sale order at a price at or
below the current NBB under certain circumstances. The Exchange's short
sale price sliding will continue to operate consistent with this rule,
however, if a User opts-in to multiple price sliding, the Exchange will
re-price a short sale order based on declines to the NBB. If, instead,
a User maintains the default form of price sliding, the Exchange will
only re-price and display an order subject to short sale price sliding
upon entry but will not update the order to reflect declines to the
NBB. The Exchange notes that the proposed descriptions of price sliding
will also more closely mirror the description used by at least one of
its competitors, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), and thus
will help to avoid confusion amongst Exchange Users that also utilize
analogous functionality at Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 242.610(d).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
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 were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2012-035 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-BATS-2012-035. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your

comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BATS-2012-035 and should be submitted on or before
September 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20320 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner, EPA
FROM:		John Sunda (SAIC) and Kelly Meadows
DATE: 		August 27, 2008 (updated March 8, 2011)

SUBJECT:		Application of Variable Speed Cooling Water Pump Technology as a Flow Reduction Technology for 316(b)

Introduction

At most existing power plants the intake cooling water pumps are fixed speed and are sized to handle the maximum flow required. These pumps may even be oversized, as many industrial system designers allow a contingency on the system head required[1].  Fixed speed pumps must constantly operate at the maximum flow rate regardless of the cooling water flow requirements, while the actual flow requirement will vary with the power generation rate and surface water temperature.  The use of variable speed pumps (VSPs) instead of fixed speed pumps at cooling water intakes allows plant operators the flexibility to adjust the cooling water flow rate to better match the system's cooling requirements.

A reduced flow volume will result in reduced O&M costs as a result of the reduction in pump energy requirements. Depending on site-specific conditions this reduction can, in many cases, result in recovery of the capital cost of the technology over a period of time, producing savings thereafter.  In fact, VSPs are often employed in industrial systems solely for their economic benefit.  In the case of power plant intakes, the reduction in flow volume has the added benefit of reducing impingement and entrainment (I&E) impacts.

VSPs can be used to reduce flow volume even during periods of peak power generation, but there are operational limitations and consequences associated with this flow reduction technology.  These limitations include:

             *       Inherent limits of the technology that, based on system characteristics, may restrict pump operation to a specified flow range to prevent damage to the pump. The system hydraulic characteristics will also affect the amount of savings in pump energy cost;
             *       Limits in flow reduction associated with NPDES Permit heat limits, since a decrease in flow will result in an increase in condenser outlet temperature;
             *       Economic consequences of reduced plant generation output resulting from reduced turbine efficiency associated with higher condenser temperatures.

 The latter two limitations are more of a concern during periods when the source water is warmer, and will also tend to limit flow reduction during periods when the system is operating at peak capacity.

I&E Reduction from Flow Reduction

There is no question that the flow volume reduction associated with use of variable speed pumps can result in direct and proportional reduction in the impacts for both impingement and entrainment (I&E). For the purposes of compliance and benefits assessment, EPA has assumed that there is a direct one-to-one relationship between flow reduction and the reduction in I&E impacts. In other words, a flow reduction of 20% is assumed to result in a reduction in both I&E of approximately 20%. This may actually be a conservative assumption (i.e., an underestimate of total impact), as the reduction in the approach velocity for an intake may allow an even greater proportion of actively swimming fish to avoid the intake and escape impingement and entrainment.  Also, the reduction in through-screen velocity may reduce injury to impinged organisms that are returned via fish return, by reducing the force holding them against the screen.

Flow Reduction Using Existing Fixed Speed Pumps

The typical configuration for intake water pumps involves use of one to two or more fixed speed pumps in parallel that are used to pump water though each steam condenser.  There may also be a spare pump that does not operate during normal conditions. Fixed speed pumps will produce a constant volume of flow for any given set of hydraulic conditions, with flow volume being affected mostly by the pumping head. The pumping head is a measure of the energy delivered to the water by the pump and is often expressed in "feet." The pumping head is the sum of the height the water is raised plus the friction losses as water is forced through the system.

For fixed speed pumps, there are only two ways to reduce the flow volume: one is to turn off one or more pumps if there are several operating in parallel; and the other is to throttle the flow downstream of the pump, resulting in an increase in the pumping head. Both approaches have disadvantages and limitations. Turning off a pump can only be done when two or more pumps are operating in parallel and when the system conditions allow for a substantial flow reduction, like when the generators are operating well below capacity and/or when source water temperatures are very low.  Throttling the flow has the disadvantage of increasing pumping head, which increases the pump energy requirements; in addition, the amount of throttling is limited by the hydraulic capabilities and characteristics of the system.  These limitations substantially restrict the opportunity for flow reduction for most fixed speed pump systems.

VSP Retrofit

A VSP retrofit involves replacing fixed speed intake pumps with variable speed pumps. At a minimum, this involves the installation of a variable frequency drive (VFD) and replacement of the pump motor, switches, and controller. In many cases, this may be all that is needed.  A variable frequency drive is an electronic device that varies the pump motor speed by varying the electrical frequency of the AC power delivered to the pump motor.  In some cases, the existing motor may not be designed to handle the added harmonic electric currents associated with this type of system. In such cases, the pump motor may need to be derated (the maximum power output and flow rate is reduced) or the motor will need to be replaced. Additionally, the pump itself may require replacement if the existing pump hydraulic characteristics place too many limitations on the amount of flow reduction that can be obtained. If multiple pumps are operated simultaneously and in parallel, it is best to retrofit all of the pumps.

The use of VFDs allows the flow through the pumps to be controlled over a range of flow volumes, thus allowing the flow volume to be tailored to the plant operating conditions.  With proper control, the effect on turbine efficiency can be minimized and the effluent temperature can be maintained within the NPDES permit temperature limits. This allows the facility full flexibility to effect both small and moderate flow volume reductions when conditions allow.

During the winter months, use of flow reduction can actually result in an increase in turbine efficiency by eliminating subcooling in the condensers. Subcooling occurs when the steam condensate in the condenser is cooled excessively, resulting in the system's consumption of additional heat to bring the condensate back up to the boiling temperature when it is recycled back to the boilers.  Excessive subcooling can also result in the formation of condensed water droplets within the last stage of the turbine, which can damage the turbine blades. Measures to control excessive subcooling include the flow reduction methods described above for fixed speed pumps, as well as piping configurations that can bypass a portion of the flow around the condensers and piping configurations that can recirculate condenser outflow back to the pump inlet.  In the latter case, some flow reduction is already occurring but pumping energy requirements are not reduced. The control of subcooling, especially slight to moderate subcooling that might otherwise be tolerated, provides another economic benefit for VSP retrofits through increased plant power output.

Operational Limitations

There are technical limitations to the amount of volume reduction that can be achieved with VSPs. For any pump, as the speed is reduced, there is a point reached where the pump's output head is equal to the system's static head, resulting in zero flow. Continuous operation at such a condition must be avoided because the impeller will continue to spin and the water will recirculate within the pump casing, resulting in damage to the pump. The flow volume response to varying speed is unique for every combination of pump and system hydraulics, and thus the minimum safe speed must be calculated for each application to avoid operation at or even near the shutoff head. System controls are set such that the minimum pump speed will be well above that which produces zero flow conditions.  Two power plants in California (Pittsburg and Contra Cost) have installed VSPs and the minimum flow that can be attained at these plants by reducing pump speed is 50% of maximum flow[2].

One important system characteristic that affects the performance of VSPs is whether the total pumping head is predominantly the result of losses from friction or to static head.  Where the pumping head is predominantly from friction losses, the flow reduction capability of VSPs is greater and overall system efficiency at reduced flows will be greater. An example of a system where friction losses are a large component of the pumping head would be a system that uses an inverted siphon configuration.  Inverted siphon configurations are often used in once-through systems where the condenser elevation is close to the water surface, because they are well worth the savings in pump energy requirements associated with the siphon configuration. Such systems require vacuum pumps to remove the gases that collect in the high points.  To prevent water vapor from forming under the vacuum conditions that form within the siphon, the height of the inverted siphon is limited. If the condenser elevation is above the maximum siphon height, then the siphon height is shortened by exposing the downstream end to the air at an elevation above that of the source water in a structure called a seal pit.  Facilities where the condensers are located well above the water surface will have higher static components of the pumping head even when inverted siphons are used. Thus, the condenser elevation and piping configuration will affect the performance of VSPs.

In systems where the pumping head is predominantly static head, as the pump speed is reduced a point is soon reached where small changes in speed can result in large changes in flow rate, especially as the pumping head approaches the system static head as described above. Thus, the available range of flow reduction is much lower than in systems where the pumping head is mostly friction losses. Also, in systems where the pumping head is predominantly static head, the pump efficiency drops substantially with reduced speed. Such systems will experience much less power usage savings.  Thus, use of VSPs in such systems is less advantageous. In these high static head systems, the pump and system hydraulic characteristics must be carefully evaluated before deciding whether the available benefits outweigh the costs.

When the turbine system is operating at a given generation rate (i.e., a constant steam load), a reduction of the cooling water flow volume will result in a proportional increase in the condenser temperatures.  This will result in an increase in the difference in cooling water temperature between the condenser inlet and the condenser outlet (∆T). Many plants have NPDES permit conditions that set a maximum limit for the ∆T value.  This effectively places a practical limit on the amount of flow reduction that can be achieved. During warmer months, the increase in condenser temperature will also result in a higher turbine exhaust pressure, resulting in a reduction in turbine efficiency. Thus, there is a competing economic incentive to maintain higher flow levels.

Many plants have NPDES permit conditions that set a maximum effluent temperature, which may put additional limitations on the availability of flow reduction through variable speed pumping, especially during summer months, regardless of the economic considerations. In fact, under extreme summer conditions, some plants may be required to maintain the cooling water flow at full capacity while having to reduce power output (derate) in order to meet temperature limits.

As described above, the amount of flow reduction that can be achieved has both operational and seasonal limitations. In general, opportunities for flow reduction are greater during cooler months and thus the benefits of I&E reductions may be enhanced or reduced depending on the timing of the seasonal variations in the presence and behavior of the various life stages of the affected aquatic organisms.

Applicability

Flow reduction through the use of VSPs alone may not be sufficient to result in compliance with 316(b) I&E reduction standards. The technology, however, should be effective in producing partial reductions and, coupled with other technologies, may help ensure compliance. Because of the economic benefit associated with reduced pumping energy requirements, VSPs may be useful even when the other technologies are fully capable of meeting the I&E requirements by themselves and when the presence of sensitive organisms coincides with the period when the source water is warmest.  Given their limitations, EPA should not consider VSPs as a stand-alone technology option but, rather, one that should be applied in conjunction with other technologies. VSPs should be considered as a technology option that can provide moderate I&E reductions that complement other technologies that may otherwise be unable or only marginally able to meet the I&E reduction requirements.

The capital costs of VSP retrofit will be dependent on which components of the pumps need to be replaced; it should be assumed, at a minimum, that a retrofit will include replacement of the pump motors.  Given the savings in pump energy costs associated with VSPs, the net operating costs should be negative in most applications (i.e., savings in pump energy costs will exceed any maintenance costs). Actual savings will be highly variable depending on the system hydraulic conditions, the plant operating schedule, and the degree of flow reduction attained. If conditions are favorable, the net operating savings will offset capital costs (i.e., the technology will pay for itself).  However, if flow volume reduction is aggressively sought, then pump energy savings will be offset by reduced plant output associated with a reduction in turbine efficiency.

VSPs will be most effective when:

 Facility capacity utilization rates are not very high.
 Cooling pump head is predominantly from friction losses and not static head.
 They are combined with other I&E reduction technologies.

The amount of flow reduction that can be achieved at any given moment will vary from 0% to as high as 50%. Given this variability, the overall flow reduction will lie somewhere in between and will be dependant on the factors described above.  Technologies that could benefit from being paired with VSPs may include:

 Traveling screens - Modules 1, 2, 2a, 3
 Fish barrier net - Module 5
 Velocity cap - Module 8

Since reduced flow volume will result in a reduction in the approach and through-screen velocities, VSPs will likely result in improved performance of velocity caps and traveling screens, particularly those with high approach velocities.

Costs

Capital Costs

A review of the 316(b) Phase I Technical Development Document (TDD) shows that the VSP costs shown in Table 2-21, Table 2-22 and Chart 2-10 are comparative costs for new construction alternatives and do not include such costs as equipment removal, installation, controls and instrumentation, housing for the VFD, and other indirect costs. Any cost derived using the Phase I data must also include costs for these additional components.

O&M Costs

Operating costs of VSPs will consist of pump energy and equipment maintenance. Maintenance for the pump and motor should not change and, in fact, may drop due to less mechanical stress on the system at lower speeds. Maintenance costs for the variable frequency drive are low and only a slight amount of additional energy is required to run the VFD.  While operation may require more frequent oversight, the system will likely be controlled by personnel in the main control room.  Thus, the only significant change in O&M costs will be the reduction in pump energy requirements (i.e., negative net O&M). Assuming the goal is to maximize flow reduction, it is reasonable to assume that an aggressive flow reduction may be sought and, at times, will result in reduced turbine efficiency, especially during the summer.  The simplest O&M cost approach would be to assume that the system will be operated such that the annual reduction in pumping energy will be roughly equal to the energy penalty associated with reduced turbine efficiency.  In other words, there would be no net gain or loss in annual total power generation.

For facilities that do not require aggressive flow reduction to meet I&E reduction requirements and where site conditions are moderately favorable, this technology could be assumed to be a low- to no-cost technology with respect to capital and net O&M costs.   As such, it is an available low-cost technology option that could be used to improve and supplement the performance of other onsite I&E reduction technologies.

Estimated VSP Costs for a Typical facility

Costs to install VSPs at a "typical" power plant (with a DIF of 800 mgd) are presented in the table below.  Two scenarios are provided: one where the facility has two circulating pumps per intake and a second where the facility has three circulating pumps per intake.  By adding VSPs, the facility could tailor withdrawals to best meet cooling needs.  This analysis assumes a cost of $15 per gpm, with no incremental O&M costs.

                            Typical Plant DIF Total
                              Proportion Add VSP
                                   Cost Flow
                                   Cost Flow
                                 Unit Cost VSP
                                  Total Cost

                                      MGD
                                       %
                                      MGD
                                      gpm
                                     $/gpm
                                 2009 Dollars
Assume 1 in 3 pumps get VFD
                                      800
                                      33%
                                      264
                                    183,333
                                      15
                                  $2,750,000
Assume 1 in 2 pumps get VFD
                                      800
                                      50%
                                      400
                                    277,778
                                      15
                                  $4,170,000

References

[1]Gambica Association Ltd. Variable Speed Drive Pumps  -  Best Practice Guide.
www.gambica.org.uk/pdfs/VSD_Pumps.pdf

[2]MIRANT DELTA, LLC  -  DRAFT. Mirant Proposed BDCP Covered Activities. 2007.
Accessed at: www.resources.ca.gov/bdcp/docs/5.4.2007_HO_Mirant_BDCP_Covered_Activities_(2)_.pdf

[3]"Variable speed pumping for submersible wastewater pumping systems."  World Pumps. Volume  2003. Issue 439. April 2003. Pages 29-31. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJK-49KRN29-X&_user=5099374&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000066306&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5099374&md5=38f92d2724bc5ab6359cbbdbb92bfb89