[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28757-28760]
[DOCID:fr24my10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0405]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in
certain waters of Washington Channel on the Potomac River. The security
zone is necessary to provide for the security and safety of life and
property of event participants, spectators and mariners during the U.S.
Coast Guard Vice Commandant's Change of Watch ceremony from 6 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on May 24, 2010. Entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, or
his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on May 24,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0405 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0405 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Sector Baltimore Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is contrary to public interest to
delay the effective date of this rule. The Coast Guard is establishing
this security zone to protect high-ranking government officials,
mitigate potential terrorist acts, and enhance public and maritime
safety and security. The Coast Guard was unable to publish a NPRM due
to the short time period between event planners notifying the Captain
of the Port Baltimore of the security needs during the event and the
publication of this security zone. Furthermore, delaying the effective
date would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives of
protecting high-ranking government officials, mitigating potential
terrorist acts and enhancing public and maritime safety security.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment, therefore, a 30-day notice period is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
security zone's intended objectives of protecting high-ranking
government officials, mitigating potential terrorist acts and enhancing
public and maritime safety and security.

Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard will conduct a ceremony at Fort McNair in
Washington, DC on Monday, May 24, 2010. To address security concerns
during the event, the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland is
establishing a security zone upon certain waters of the Washington
Channel. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent
vessels or persons from engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during
the U.S. Coast Guard Vice Commandant's Change of Watch ceremony. Due to
the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack during the ceremony would
have against the large number of dignitaries, and the surrounding area
and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event.

Discussion of Rule

    Through this regulation, the Coast Guard will establish a security
zone. The security zone will be in effect from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on
May 24, 2010. The security zone will include all navigable waters of
the Washington Channel, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the
north along latitude 38[deg]52'03'' N and bounded on the south along
latitude 38[deg]51'50'' N (North American Datum 1983). This location is
entirely within the Area of Responsibility of the Captain of the Port
Baltimore, as set forth at 33 CFR 3.25-15.
    Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented
would be required to immediately proceed out of the zone. Vessels
already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is
implemented do not have to depart the security zone. Entry into this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area, the
Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number 410-
576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast
Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Captain of the Port will
issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to publicize the security zone and
notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices
will continue until the ceremony is complete.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this security zone restricts
vessel traffic through the affected area, vessels may seek permission
from the Captain of the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.
Furthermore, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due
to the limited size and duration that the regulated area will be in
effect. In addition, notifications will be made to the maritime
community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust
their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
operate or transit through or within the security zone during the
enforcement period. The security zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. The security zone is of limited size and duration.
Although the security zone will apply to the entire width of the
channel, maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime
community before the effective period.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary security
zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0405 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0405  Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel,
Washington, DC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all waters of
the Washington Channel, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the
north along latitude 38[deg]52'03'' N and bounded on the south along
latitude 38[deg]51'50'' N (North American Datum 1983).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general security zone regulations found in
33 CFR 165.33 apply to the security zone created by this temporary
section, Sec.  165.T05.0405.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels
already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is
implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels
underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to
depart the zone.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must
first request authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on May 24, 2010.

    Dated: May 11, 2010.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2010-12341 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


While RTOs serve more than two-thirds of the nation's load, there are many different traditional market structures outside of RTOs in which affected EGUs participate. "Markets vary around the United States by market type  -  traditional or RTO  -  generation types, customer use, climate, fuel costs, political and regulatory conditions, and other factors." "Traditional wholesale electricity markets exist primarily in the Southeast, Southwest and Northwest where utilities are responsible for system operations and management, and, typically, for providing power to retail consumers." As a general matter, wholesale physical power trading outside of RTOs occurs through bilateral transactions. Vertically integrated utilities, which own transmission, distribution, and generation assets, utilize a variety of means to meet load, including "a combination of owned resources, contract resources, and short-term purchases and sales to meet their customer demands, and a combination of their own transmission lines and lines owned by others to move power from where it is produced to the communities they serve." In states with cost-of-service regulation of vertically-integrated utilities, the utilities themselves are often also the balancing authorities who determine unit dispatch in a cost-minimizing fashion (seeking the lowest marginal cost). They can also arrange to buy and sell power with other balancing authorities. The methodology that individual affected EGUs outside of RTOs will utilize to implement building blocks 2 and 3 depends upon the affected EGU's size, available resource mix, and the historical relationships that it has developed for meeting electricity demand.
      Given the diversity of entities in the electricity sector, it is not possible to fully describe the unique situation of each and every affected EGU. However, there are some useful distinctions that can be helpful in understanding potential ways to implement the building blocks for entities outside of RTOs. First, there are large utilities or groups of utilities that operate balancing authorities and have a diverse resource mix to meet electricity demand. Second, there are smaller entities, such as some municipalities, electric cooperatives and other public power entities, which may not have a diverse resource mix but can still implement building blocks 2 and 3. Finally, we note that in some areas in the West there are increasing opportunities for entities to participate in the Energy Imbalance Market to meet system needs and diversify resources.
 Building Block 2

      Outside of RTOs, a large utility or groups of utilities may be responsible for balancing electrical supply and load over a wider geographic area. Some of these entities are very large with multiple utilities or operating companies signing an agreement or agreements establishing the terms and conditions for members. These entities will often have a diverse resource mix with both affected steam EGUs and NGCC units that need to comply with standards of performance in state plans developed pursuant to the 111(d) final rule. As noted above, affected steam EGUs could purchase ERCs in order to implement building block 2 and achieve the specified emission rate. Additionally, similar to the methods utilized in RTOs, an affected steam EGU could utilize an ERC generated by an NGCC unit that it owns or is affiliated with to meet its emission-rate limits. The NGCC unit could either sell those ERCs to another affected steam EGU or utilize those ERCs to meet the rate-based requirement of its own affected steam EGU. Further, we note that power markets in these areas are largely bilateral markets, providing affected steam EGUs with opportunities to bilaterally contract to purchase energy and/or environmental attributes from available NGCC units. In addition, a large federal entity such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with a diverse mix of generation resources could utilize similar methods to those utilized by a large utility or group of utilities to implement building block 2.
      We note that there are smaller balancing authorities that are not in RTOs or areas with large, diversified utilities. These balancing authorities can include municipalities, electric cooperatives, and other public power. Many of these entities own a small amount of generation and may contract with others in order to obtain the generation they need to meet load. One way in which these entities could meet building block 2 is by buying ERCs. Moreover, many of these entities also have a history of bilaterally contracting to meet load. They could also implement building block 2 by bilaterally contracting for NGCC while decreasing their steam generation. Additionally, in some cases, these entities may own both steam EGUs and NGCC. In those instances, they could reduce their coal dispatch and increase natural gas dispatch. Some electric cooperatives and/or municipalities belong to a generation and transmission cooperative that supplies wholesale electricity to its members, providing additional opportunities for electric cooperatives to implement both building blocks 2 and 3.
 Building Block 3

      Similar to building block 2, affected EGUs in large utilities or groups of utilities can implement building block 3 by buying ERCs. These entities could also acquire an ownership interest in new RE. Many entities already have experience with developing RE resources and can similarly invest in new RE either by developing the RE itself, jointly investing in RE with another entity, or contracting with a third-party to develop RE resources.
      This is also true for other entities outside RTOs and large utilities or groups of utilities. Municipals, electric cooperatives, and other public power entities can purchase ERCs from RE resources. These entities also have a history of contracting with outside sources to meet their electricity supply needs and can use this as a model for how to contract for RE. Public power sources may wish to develop their own RE resources to implement building block 3. The NREL paper provides an excellent overview of how municipalities, electric cooperatives, and other entities that own affected EGUs can contract with third-parties to develop RE resources.
 Implementing the Building Blocks in Mass-based States

      Mass-based state plans rely exclusively on reported stack emissions for determining whether a mass-based CO2 emission goal is achieved. In mass-based states, affected EGUs can implement building blocks 2 and 3 by reducing their generation or purchasing allowances. Compliance in mass-based states is determined through a comparison of the affected EGU's monitored mass emissions to a mass-based emission limit. The price of allowances associated with CO2 emissions will generally be reflected in all units' variable costs as used to make dispatch decisions. Because this added variable cost of CO2 allowances will be higher for units with higher CO2 emission rates, when affected EGUs reduce their generation as a strategy for facilitating compliance with their standards of performance, the generation reduced at affected EGUs with higher emission rates will tend to be replaced with increased generation from EGUs with lower CO2 emission rates whose variable costs will be relatively more competitive because of their lesser CO2 allowance costs.

 Cost Recovery

      Commenters have raised concerns about cost recovery issues with regard to 111(d) compliance costs. As noted above, RTOs have many different types of market participants. In an RTO, entities such as independent power producers (IPPs) bid into the energy market to recover their costs, including environmental compliance costs. "Markets will clear in a least-cost manner based on operational practices and will send appropriate short-term price signals based on the marginal cost of production." IPPs may also recover their costs through long-term power purchase agreements or other bilateral contracts. Cost recovery for an IPP that sells its power through a bilateral contract will be dependent upon contract mechanisms that allow it to pass through environmental compliance and other regulatory costs. In contrast to IPPs, entities that are operating under cost-of-service regulation obtain cost recovery through state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) or other authorities with jurisdiction over their rates. "In states where electric utilities own affected power plants, such costs will tend to be passed along to those utility's consumers through regulated rates as a pass-through of a variable expense, or as recovery of and a return on compliance capital investments." The municipal electric utilities, cooperatives, and federal authorities "have rates based on costs pursuant to the decisions of elected or appointed boards (and in some states, by PUCs)." "Typically, state regulators in states that own power plants determine whether large capital investments at those plants are prudent, used and useful, and appropriate to be included in `just and reasonable' rates charged to customers." In some instances, utilities obtain preapproval of expenditures for costs of environmental compliance. For example, "under Ohio law, under an automatic rider, utilities are able to recover costs of environmental compliance, including `the cost of emission allowances; and the cost of federally mandated carbon or energy taxes...' and a `reasonable allowance for construction work in progress ... for an environmental expenditure for any electric generating facility of the electric distribution utility....'"
XXV.  System of Emission Reduction as a Set of Measures
      In section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble, we discuss the definition of the section 111(a)(1) term, "best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated, including a discussion of the term, "system of emission reduction." In our proposal, we defined "system of emission reduction" as, in part, a "set of things ...." Some commenters argued that building block 1 and building block 2, were not systems of emission reduction because they were not sets of things or actions.
	We disagree with these comments. Each of the examples cited by the commenters consists of a multi-step set of actions that yields emission reductions. For building block 1, the purchase, installation and operation of more efficient equipment could be a set of actions that results in emission reduction and that is similar to the purchase, installation, and operation of add-on pollution controls. The same is true for the undertaking of more efficient operational actions. Similarly, each of the several methods that affected EGUs have to increase generation of existing NGCC units, described in the preamble, coupled with the resulting decreases in steam generation, constitute a set of actions that results in emission reduction
XXVI. Subcategorization
	This section responds to various comments concerning the EPA's approach to subcategorization.
      In this rule, we are treating all fossil fuel-fired EGUs as a single category, and, in the emission guidelines that we are promulgating with this rule, we are treating steam EGUs and combustion turbines as separate subcategories. We are determining the BSER for steam EGUs and the BSER for combustion turbines, and applying the BSER to each subcategory to determine a performance rate for that subcategory. We are not further subcategorizing among different types of steam EGUs or combustion turbines. As we discuss below, this approach is fully consistent with the provisions of section 111(d), which simply require the EPA to determine the BSER, do not prescribe the method for doing so, and are silent as to subcategorization. This approach is also fully consistent with other provisions in section 111, which require the EPA first to list source categories that may reasonably be expected to endanger public health or welfare and then to regulate new sources within each such source category, and which grant the EPA discretion whether to subcategorize the sources for purposes of determining the BSER.
    	Each affected EGU can achieve the performance rate by implementing the BSER, specifically, by taking a range of actions  - - some of which depend on features of the section 111(d) plan chosen by the state, such as the choice of rate-based or mass-based standards of performance and the choice of whether and how to permit emissions trading -- including investment in the building blocks, replaced or reduced generation, and purchase of emission credits or allowances. Further, in the case of a rate-based state plan, several other compliance options not included in the BSER for this rule are also available to all affected EGUs, including investment in demand-side energy efficiency measures. Such compliance options may also indirectly help affected EGUs achieve compliance under a mass-based plan.
      Our approach of subcategorizing between steam EGUs and combustion turbines is reasonable because building blocks 1 and 2 apply only to steam EGUs. Moreover, our approach of not further subcategorizing as between different types of steam EGUs or combustion turbines reflects the reasonable policy that affected EGUs with higher emission rates should reduce their emissions by a greater percentage than affected EGUs with lower emission rates and can do so at a reasonable cost using the approaches we have identified as the BSER as well as other available measures. While oil- and gas-fired steam EGUs have lower CO2 emission rates than coal-fired steam EGUs, oil- and gas-fired steam EGUs represent only a small fraction of the total generation and total CO2 emissions of steam EGUs overall. These EGUs are not disadvantaged by being placed in a subcategory whose performance rate is established based predominantly on the emissions performance of coal-fired steam EGUs with higher CO2 emission rates.
   	We have also exercised our discretion not to subcategorize by the Interconnection regions used in the analysis to develop the nationwide CO2 emission performance rates, as discussed in section V.A.3.f.
   	Likewise, although some commenters requested that we subcategorize by ownership in order to establish less stringent emission guidelines for affected EGUs owned by municipal and cooperative utilities, we decline to do so. Traditionally, our subcategorization decisions under section 111 have been based on consideration of physical and operational characteristics, now ownership characteristics. As described in sections V.A.4. and V.A.5., all types of affected EGUs, regardless of ownership, have means for accessing the building blocks and capable of achieving the emission limitations that reflect the BSER.
      Of course, a state retains great flexibility in assigning standards of performance to its affected EGUs and can impose different emission reduction obligations on its sources, as long as the overall level of emission limitation is at least as stringent as the emission guidelines, as discussed below. This rule does not prevent a state from exercising that flexibility with consideration to the ownership characteristics of its affected EGUs, if the state is persuaded that treating its EGUs differently on that basis is appropriate.
XXVII. Additional Reliability Studies
      This section notes additional studies that support the EPA's conclusion that this rulemaking will not jeopardize reliability.

Trieu Mai, Debra Sandor; Ryan Wiser; Thomas Schneider, NREL, "Renewable Electricity Futures Study (January 2012)
GE Energy Consulting, "Minnesota Renewable Energy Integration and Transmission Study; Final Report" (October 31, 2014)
GE Energy Consulting, "Integration of Renewable Resources," (August 2010)
Analysis Group
   * April 2015: Ensuring Electric Grid Reliability under the CPP (a rebuttal to some of the critical comments filed with FERC this spring (25 pages or so))
   * March 2015: Electric System Reliability and EPA's Clean Power Plan  -  the Case of PJM (like the one re: MISO)
   * May 2014: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Existing Power Plants:  Options to Ensure Electric System Reliability
AEE Institute, NERC's Clean Power Plan Phase I Reliability Assessment  -  A Critique (May 2015)
Regulatory Assistance Project, "Reliability Standards Safety Valve and the State Clean Power Plan Compliance Obligation" (April 2015)

XXVIII. Potential for emission reductions from non-BSER measures
	Section V.A of the Preamble contains a discussion of the use of non-BSER measures to achieve standards of performance. As explained in that section, these technologies are potentially available for use by affected EGUs, depending on the design of state plans, under the guidelines. Non-BSER measures either reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per MWh of generation from the set of affected EGUs or reduce the amount of generation, and therefore associated CO2 emissions, from the set of affected EGUs. This section briefly discusses these options and summarizes information the agency relied on in determining that the availability of such options provides additional flexibility and potential cost savings to the individual affected EGUs and the source category to achieve emission reductions consistent with application of the BSER.
      Demand-side energy efficiency (DS-EE) is foremost among options that are available, and the potential for reduction in emissions from DS-EE is substantial. For this reason, the EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the final rule includes a representation of DS-EE compliance potential because energy efficiency is a highly cost-effective means for reducing CO2 from the power sector, and it is reasonable to assume that a regulatory requirement to reduce CO2 emissions will motivate parties to pursue all highly cost-effective means for making emission reductions accordingly, regardless of what particular emission reduction measures were assumed in determining the level of that regulatory requirement. The EPA has included in our illustrative plan scenarios (both rate- and mass-based) a level of demand reduction that could be achieved, and the associated costs incurred, through implementation of demand-side energy efficiency measures. For illustration, we estimated the potential for net cumulative demand reduction of 23,150 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2020. By 2030, that number climbs to 327,092 gigawatt-hours (GWh), representing a 7.83 percentage reduction from business-as-usual sales. See Table 3-2 in the DS-EE TSD. See also RIA, section 3.7.1. In Chapter 5 of the DS-EE TSD, we discuss EE strategies that go beyond ratepayer-funded EE programs, of which there are many. These include building energy codes, state appliance standards, energy service performance contracting, and other coordinated efforts by utilities to manage and improve delivery of real and reactive power (referred to as "volt/VAR optimization"). By way of illustration, total savings from state appliance standards alone could be as high as 212 terrawatt-hours (TWh) in electricity savings in 2025. See DS-EE TSD, section 5.2.4, Table 7.
	The agency also believes other non-BSER measures in addition to DS-EE will be widely available to the industry. The agency discussed these in the proposal, see 79 FR 34923-25. One recent report confirms the agency's view in the proposal, confirmed and reflected in the final rule, that non-BSER measures can potentially play a significant role for many sources. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) report, "Implementing EPA's Clean Power Plan: A Menu of Options" (May 2015), identifies twenty five approaches to GHG reduction in the electric sector, provides a detailed description of compliance methods for each, and, in many cases, provides information as to the amount of emission reductions available through these approaches .
      Non-BSER measures NACAA identifies include, among others: implementing CHP;  improving coal quality; optimizing grid operations; pursuing CCS; fuel switching; reducing losses in transmission and distribution; increasing clean energy procurement requirements; encouraging clean distributed generation; and revising transmission planning, among others. See id. at Intro-4-5. Some of these measures are recognized as under-utilized. For example, CHP accounts for 8 percent of U.S. generating capacity but could be increased to 20 percent, and could reduce CO2 emissions by 800 million metric tons per year by 2030. See id. at 2-1. According to the NACAA report, use of coal washing strategies before combustion can increase plant efficiency, leading to a 2 to 3 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. See id. at 4-3.
      It should be noted that in some cases, different parts of the electric sector can be expected to take advantage of different approaches. For example, the NACAA report acknowledges that fuel-switching may be feasible at some plants (e.g., where they may be already designed to co-fire alternative fuels), but prohibitively costly at others. Id. at 9-1. The key point is that there are multiple non-BSER strategies available, some of which may work at some facilities or in one region, and others which may work elsewhere.
      The report also notes that grid optimization efforts (e.g., creating a "smart grid" and/or requiring power factor management) can reduce excessive electricity losses during transmission from peaks of around 20 percent to a more typical six or seven percent. Id. at 5-2, 5-3. Finally, by way of illustration, distributed generation, such as rooftop solar photovoltaic systems are becoming increasingly affordable and cost competitive. In six years the amount of installed distributed PV has tripled to 3 gigawatts (GW) and the module costs have dropped from about $4 per watt to about $1 per watt. Id. 17-1. The NACAA report anticipates considerable growth in distributed generation, and with grid modernization, the GHG-reducing potential of clean distributed generation will increase over time.
      While the EPA does not specifically endorse the facts and statistics presented by NACAA in this report,  this report confirms the broad scope of non-BSER measures to reduce emissions, and confirms that significant amounts of emissions can be reduced though these measures. Thus, these measures enhance flexibility by both sources and states, potentially lower the costs of compliance with the final rule, and safeguard the ability of affected EGUs to comply with the emission limits of this rule.
XXIX. Amount of Emission Reductions in First Years of Interim Period
      In section V.B.7. of the preamble, the EPA discusses the relative stringency of the section 111(b) and 111(d) standards. In that section, the EPA notes that under this rulemaking, all states can meet their interim state goals by 2029 even if they do not require any emission reductions from their fossil steam EGUs or NGCC units in 2022. In fact, most of the states can also meet their interim state goals by 2029 even if they do not require any emission reductions from their affected EGUs in 2023 either. Moreover, all states can achieve their interim emission performance rates for NGCC units by 2029 even if they do not require any emission reductions from their NGCC units until, at the earliest, 2024.
      In making these calculations, the EPA relied on the data available in Appendix 3 and Appendix 5 of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule.  EPA assessed what would happen if the adjusted 2012 baseline emission rate for states remained in place through 2022, and 2023, and assessed what would happen if the 2012 baseline emission rate for NGCC units, by itself, remained in place for those years.  EPA determined that states could continue to operate at this baseline emission rate level in 2022 and not make any reductions until after 2022, and still comply with its interim state emission rate goal by meeting its final state goal (but not exceeding its final state goal) prior to 2030.  In other words, states have the flexibility not to require any emission reductions on the front end of the compliance period, and more on the back end and still comply with the interim rate (again, without reducing the emission rate below the 2030 goal).  Moreover, EPA determined that the NGCC fleet in states could go beyond 2023 without having to make any CO2 emission reductions provided the state would meet (and not exceed) its final goal prior to 2030.  The referenced TSD and Appendix are available in the docket for this rulemaking.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47287]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7203; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-14]

Establishment of Class D Airspace: Destin, FL; Duke Field, Eglin
AFB, FL; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field,
FL; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eglin Air Force Base, FL;
Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL; and Crestview, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Delay of effective date, disposition of comment.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule
published June 21, 2016, establishing Class D airspace at Destin, FL,
providing the controlled airspace required for the Air Traffic Control
Tower at Destin Executive Airport, (formerly Destin-Fort Walton Beach
Airport). This allows for the disposition of comments received but not
acknowledged prior to publishing the final rule. This action addresses
a comment received, but not previously acknowledged.

DATES: This correction is effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016, and
the effective date of the rule amending 14 CFR part 71, published on
June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40165), is delayed to 0901 UTC November 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

History

    The Federal Register published a final rule (81 FR 40165, June 21,
2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-7203, establishing Class D airspace at Destin
Executive Airport, Destin, FL; and Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL; removing
Class D airspace at Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field; and amending Class D
and Class E airspace at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Further review
revealed one comment was received, but not addressed. This action
corrects that error.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August
6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Federal Register of June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40165) FR Doc. FAA-2015-7203,
Establishment of Class D Airspace: Destin, FL; Duke Field, Eglin AFB,
FL; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL;
and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eglin Air Force Base, FL;
Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL; and Crestview, FL, is corrected as follows:
    On page 40165, column 3, on line 37, Remove the following text:
``July 21'' and in its place, ``November 10''.
    On page 40166, column 1, beginning on line 47, remove the following
text: ``No comments were received'' and in its place add, ``One comment
was received, from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, in
support of the rulemaking. The commenter requested the FAA make clear
all publications, so as to relay the proper information concerning this
airspace to the flying public. ''

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-17246 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36133-36134]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15875]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86426; File No. SR-GEMX-2019-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 2
(Options Market Participants) and Options 3 (Options Trading Rules)

July 22, 2019.
    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 July 17, 2019, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 Exchange proposes to amend Options 2 (Options Market
Participants) and Options 3 (Options Trading Rules) relating to certain
order types.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is amend Options 2 (Options
Market Participants) and Options 3 (Options Trading Rules) relating to
certain order types. Each change is described in more detail below.
Stopped Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to remove Stopped Orders
as an order type. A Stopped Order is a limit order that meets the
requirements of Options 5, Section 2(b)(8).\3\ As provided in Options
5, Section 2(b)(8), a ``stopped order'' is defined as an order for
which, at the time of receipt for the order, a Member had guaranteed an
execution at no worse than a specified price, where: (i) The stopped
order was for the account of a Customer; (ii) the Customer agreed to
the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and (iii) the price of
the Trade-Through was, for a stopped buy order, lower than the national
Best Bid in the options series at the time of execution, or, for a
stopped sell order, higher than the national Best Offer in the options
series at the time of execution. To execute Stopped Orders, Members
must enter them into the Facilitation Mechanism or Solicited Order
Mechanism pursuant to Options 3, Section 11.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Options 3, Section 7(b)(5).
    \4\ Stopped orders were originally introduced on the Exchange as
a Trade-Through exception under the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Plan''). GEMX adopted rules to
implement the Trade-Through exception for stopped orders as an order
type. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70050 (July 26, 2013),
78 FR 46622 (August 1, 2013) (File No. 10-209).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to a lack of demand for Stopped Orders, the Exchange plans to
decommission the functionality supporting this order type.\5\ To
reflect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete all
references to Stopped Orders as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ No member has used this order type since the Exchange's
previous trading system migrated over to Nasdaq INET technology in
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Options 2, Section 6(a), which currently allows Market
Makers to enter all order types in the options classes to which they
are appointed, except for Stopped Orders, Reserve Orders, and Customer
Cross Orders.
     Options 3, Section 7(b)(5), which defines a Stopped Order.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments relating to
Stopped Orders by November 1, 2019.
All-Or-None Orders
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Options 3, Section 8 (Opening)
to remove specific references to the manner in which All-Or-None Orders
\6\ (``AONs'') will be treated in the Exchange's opening process. The
Exchange previously amended its rules to provide that an AON may only
be entered into the System with a time-in-force designation of
Immediate-Or-Cancel,\7\ and deleted related rule text that described an
AON as persisting in the Exchange's order book.\8\ The Exchange,
however, inadvertently did not remove such AON references from the
opening process rule in Options 3, Section 8. At the time the
Exchange's opening process was adopted, AONs were not restricted and
could trade as a limit or market order to be executed in its entirety
or not at all.\9\ With the amendments in SR-ISEGemini-2017-08, an AON
does not persist in the order book and is therefore treated the same as
any other Immediate-or-Cancel Order. As such, the carve-outs specified
in Section 8(b), (g) and (j)(6) are unnecessary since an All-or-None
Order would execute immediately or cancel similar to other orders which
trade in the same manner. The Exchange believes removing these
references will eliminate confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An All-Or-None Order is a limit or market order that is to
be executed in its entirety or not at all. An All-Or-None Order may
only be entered as an Immediate-or-Cancel Order. See Options 3,
Section 7(c).
    \7\ An Immediate-Or-Cancel Order is a limit order that is to be
executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so
executed is to be treated as cancelled. See Options 3, Section
7(b)(3). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80102 (February 24,
2017), 82 FR 12381 (March 2, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2017-08) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related
to All-or-None Orders).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82128 (November 20,
2017), 82 FR 56082 (November 27, 2017) (SR-GEMX-2017-51).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80014 (February 10,
2017), 82 FR 10952 (February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market

system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that removing Stopped Orders as an order type
is consistent with the Act because it would simplify the functionality
available on the Exchange and reduce the complexity of its order types.
The Exchange's affiliated options markets, Nasdaq BX (``BX''), The
Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq PHLX (``Phlx'') and Nasdaq ISE,
LLC do not offer stopped orders as an order type.
    The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act to
remove unnecessary and confusing references to AONs in the opening rule
set forth in Options 3, Section 8 as AONs will now immediately trade or
cancel. The Exchange originally specified the manner in which AONs
would trade in the opening because at the time the opening process was
adopted, this order type traded differently as compared to other order
types. That distinction has become unnecessary because AONs trade the
same as other Immediate-or-Cancel Orders. Updating Options 3, Section 8
to remove an unnecessary and inaccurate distinction will protect
investors and the public interest by clarifying the rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
allow the Exchange to remove an order type that no Member uses today,
and eliminate unnecessary and inaccurate references to AONs within its
opening rule, thereby making clear the order types available for
trading on the Exchange and reducing potential confusion.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change 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)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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
exception occurred on : 2019-15875.htm
exception occurred on : 2019-15875.htm
     Send an email to rule-comm[email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2019-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2019-09. 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 website (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 website 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2019-09 and should be submitted on
or before August 16, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15875 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 51864-51866]
[DOCID:fr23au10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62734; File No. SR-MSRB-2010-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a
Subscription To the Information Collected by the MSRB's Short-term
Obligation Rate Transparency (``SHORT'') System

August 17, 2010.
    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 August 10, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') 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 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 is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to
establish a subscription to the information collected by the MSRB's
Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency (``SHORT'') System. The MSRB
has requested that the proposed rule change be made effective on
September 30, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room. If approved, the rule text for the
Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency Subscription Service would be
available on the MSRB Web site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-
Interpretations.aspx under the heading Information Facilities.

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 SHORT System is a facility of the MSRB for the collection and
dissemination of information about securities bearing interest at
short-term rates. Currently, these securities consist of Auction Rate
Securities (``ARS'') and Variable Rate Demand Obligations (``VRDOs'').
The proposed rule change consists of a proposal to establish a
subscription to the information collected by the SHORT System. The data
stream subscription would be provided through a Web service and would
be made available for an annual fee of $10,000.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed subscription price would cover a portion of the
administrative, technical and operating costs of the SHORT
subscription service but would not cover all costs of such
subscription service or of the SHORT System. The MSRB has proposed
establishing the subscription price at a commercially reasonable
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information disseminated from the SHORT System also is posted to
the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) Web portal
pursuant to the EMMA short-term obligation rate transparency service.
Such information would be made available to subscribers simultaneously
with the availability of such information to the EMMA Web portal. The
subscription service would make the information collected by the SHORT
System available to market participants for re-dissemination and for
use in creating value-added products and services. Such re-
dissemination and third-party use would provide market participants,
including investors and the general public, additional avenues for
obtaining the information collected by the SHORT System and would make
additional tools available for making well-informed investment
decisions.
    Data elements with respect to the SHORT subscription service that
would be provided through the data stream would be set forth in the
SHORT System Subscriber Manual posted on the MSRB Web site. The SHORT
System Subscriber Manual would provide a complete, up-to-date listing
of all data elements made available through the SHORT subscription
service, including any additions, deletions or modifications to
disseminated data elements, detailed definitions of each data element,
specific data format information, and information about technical data
elements to support transmission and data-integrity processes between
the SHORT System and subscribers.
    Subscriptions would be provided through computer-to-computer data
streams utilizing XML files for data. Appropriate schemas and other
technical specifications for accessing the Web services through which
the data stream will be provided would be set forth in the SHORT System
Subscriber Manual posted on the MSRB Web site.
    The MSRB would make the SHORT subscription service available on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. Subscribers would be subject to all
of the terms of the subscription agreement to be entered into between
the MSRB and each subscriber, including proprietary rights of third
parties in information provided by such third parties that is made
available through the subscription. The MSRB would not be responsible
for the content of the information submitted by submitters that is
distributed to subscribers of the SHORT subscription service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\4\ which provides that the MSRB's rules shall
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act. The SHORT subscription service would serve as an additional
mechanism by which the MSRB works toward removing impediments to and
helping to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market in
municipal securities. The subscription service would make the
information collected by the SHORT System available to market
participants for re-dissemination and for use in creating value-added
products and services. Such re-dissemination and third-party use would
provide market participants, including investors and the general
public, additional avenues for obtaining the information collected by
the SHORT System and would make additional tools available for making
well-informed investment decisions. Broad access to the information
collected by the SHORT System, in addition to the public access through
the EMMA Web portal, should further assist in preventing fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices by improving the opportunity for public
investors to access material information about Auction Rate Securities
and Variable Rate Demand Obligations.
    Furthermore, broader re-dissemination and third-party use of the
information collected by the SHORT System should promote a more fair
and efficient municipal securities market in which transactions are
effected on the basis of material information available to all parties
to such transactions, which should allow for fairer pricing of
transactions based on a more complete understanding of the terms of the
securities (including any changes thereto).

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. The proposed rule change would make the
information collected by the SHORT System available to all persons on
an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The information provided through
the subscription service would be available to all subscribers
simultaneously with the availability of the information through the
EMMA Web portal. In addition to making the information available for
free on the EMMA Web portal to all members of the public, the MSRB
would make the information collected by the SHORT System available by
subscription on an equal and non-discriminatory basis without imposing
restrictions on subscribers from, or imposing additional charges on
subscribers for, re-disseminating such information or otherwise adding
value-added services and products based on

such information on terms determined by each subscriber.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB notes that subscribers may be subject to
proprietary rights of third parties in information provided by such
third parties that is made available through the subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 or disapprove 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 Number SR-MSRB-2010-06 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-2010-06. 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 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 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-2010-06 and should be
submitted on or before September 13, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20817 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 91 (Thursday, May 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26179-26181]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10039]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0069; FRL-10023-62-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). The revision
fulfills Delaware's nonattainment new source review (NNSR) SIP element
requirement for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions to the Delaware SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0069. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Johansen, Permits Branch (3AD10),
Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Johansen can also be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 24, 2021 (86 FR 15634), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of Delaware's certification that its existing NNSR program,
covering the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (Philadelphia Area) nonattainment area (which
includes New Castle County) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, is at
least as stringent as the requirements at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.165, as amended by the final rule titled
``Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP
Requirements Rule), for ozone and its precursors. See 83 FR 62998
(December 6, 2018). The formal SIP revision was submitted by Delaware
on August 3, 2020.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Delaware's SIP approved NNSR program, established in Title 7
Delaware Administrative Code (DE Admin Code) 1125 (Requirements for
Preconstruction Review), applies to the construction and modification
of major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its August 3,
2020 SIP revision, Delaware certifies that the version of Title 7 DE
Admin Code Section 1125 approved in the SIP is at least as stringent as
the Federal NNSR requirements for the Philadelphia Area.\1\ EPA last
approved Delaware's major NNSR program as being consistent with Federal
NNSR requirements on August 12, 2019. 84 FR 39758 (August 12, 2019). In
that action, EPA approved DNREC's 2008 Ozone Certification SIP revision
for NNSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 20, 2016, EPA disapproved a proposed SIP revision
that sought to include additional ERC provisions, adopted by
Delaware on December 11, 2016, into the Delaware SIP, specifically,
7 DE Admin Code 1125 Sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6. 81 FR 72529. Since
EPA disapproved these provisions, the previously approved provisions
that EPA approved into Delaware's SIP on October 2, 2012 remain
applicable Federal requirements. 77 FR 60053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delaware has chosen not to include certain optional NNSR provisions
that EPA could approve, pertaining to emissions change of VOC in
extreme nonattainment areas and emission reduction credits. Delaware's
choice not to include these provisions does not affect EPA's
determination regarding the approvability of its August 3, 2020
submittal, and they were not discussed in this rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DNREC provided information regarding anti-backsliding in its
August 3, 2020 SIP submittal to EPA, which was not a requirement of
EPA's 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. See 83 FR 62998 (December 6,
2018). EPA noted in the 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that it
would address anti-backsliding in a future rulemaking action;
therefore, EPA will not be acting on anything related to anti-
backsliding in this action.

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

    Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. One
supportive comment was received for this action, which can be found in
Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0069.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons stated in the NPRM, EPA has concluded that
Delaware's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision
requirements, meets the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and
the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is approving
Delaware's August 3, 2020 SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area to the
Delaware SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 12, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Delaware's NNSR program and the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 7, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``2015 8-Hour Ozone Certification for Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR)'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable     State submittal    EPA approval
           revision              geographic area        date             date           Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 8-Hour Ozone               Delaware portion        08/03/20   5/13/21, [Insert
 Certification for               of the                             Federal
 Nonattainment New Source        Philadelphia-                      Register
 Review (NNSR).                  Wilmington-                        citation].
                                 Atlantic City
                                 nonattainment
                                 area (which
                                 includes New
                                 Castle County).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-10039 Filed 5-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9305-9306]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-463-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--Shell
Energy North America (US), L.P. to be effective 4/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-464-000.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Nautilus LINK Integration
Filing to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-465-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Mar 2018 to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-466-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: 2017 Operational Transactions Report.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-467-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: 2017 Operational Transactions Report.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-468-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: 2017 Operational Transactions Report.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-469-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: 2017 Operational Transactions Report.
    Filed Date: 2/26/18.
    Accession Number: 20180226-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-470-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report of Operational
Purchases and Sales 2018.

    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-471-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Chevron
Release to ConocoPhillips to be effective 3/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/12/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 27, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04377 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79007-79008]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-43-000.
    Applicants: Wolf Ridge Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Wolf Ridge Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20201201-5380.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-44-000.
    Applicants: Blue Summit I Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Blue Summit I Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20201201-5381.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3246-016; ER10-2474-022; ER10-2475-022; ER10-
2984-049; ER13-1266-032; ER15-2211-029.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp, Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power
Company, CalEnergy, LLC, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the BHE MBR
Sellers and Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20201201-5393.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-71-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: FPL & Seminole Amendment to Second
Revised NITSA RS No. 162 to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-529-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DLM Filing December 2020 to
be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20201201-5326.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-530-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-12-01_Schedule 49 Cost
Allocation for RDT Payments to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/1/20.
    Accession Number: 20201201-5327.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-531-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1885R10 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Bronson to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-532-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1891R9 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Mulberry to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-533-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1894R9 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Vermillion to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-534-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1978R9 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Toronto to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-535-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 5857; Queue No. AB2-180 to be effective 11/2/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-536-000.
    Applicants: Montague Wind Power Facility, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Revision to be
effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-537-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 5852; Queue
No. AC2-079 to be effective 11/2/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-538-000.
    Applicants: AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., Ohio Power
Company, American Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits ILDSA SA No.
1336 and Hatton FA to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 2, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26932 Filed 12-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P