[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44769-44771]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18221]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0564; FRL-9914-72-ORD]

Human Studies Review Board; Notification of a Public Webinar/
Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of the
Science Advisor announces a public Webinar/teleconference of the Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB) to discuss its draft report on the HSRB
meeting held August 15, 2014.

DATES: The Webinar/teleconference will be held on Friday, August 15,
2014,

from approximately 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Comments may be submitted on or before Friday, August 8, 2014.
Information regarding the HSRB final meeting report will be found at
http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb and http://www.regulations.gov or from the
persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Webcast: This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the HSRB Web
site http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb for information on how to access the
webcast. If difficulties arise resulting in webcasting outages, the
meeting will continue as planned.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0564, by one of the following methods:
    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the Web site
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center EPA/DC,
ORD Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
Reading Room's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call
(202) 566-1744 or email the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for
instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available
online at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2014-0564. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comments
and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any members of the public who wish to
receive further information about this Webinar/Teleconference should
contact Jim Downing at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202) 564-
2070; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailing address Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. General information
concerning the HSRB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Location: The meeting will take place via the Internet and
telephone only. Access information can be found on the HSRB Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ or by contacting the persons listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Notice.
    Meeting access: For detailed information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Jim Downing at least ten
business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
    Procedures for providing public input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Section
I, ``Public Meeting,'' under subsection D, ``How may I participate in
this meeting?'' of this notice.

I. Public Meeting

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of particular interest to persons who conduct or assess
human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by the EPA,
or to persons who are, or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Since other
entities may also be interested, the EPA has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I access electronic copies of this document and other
related information?

    You may use http://www.regulations.gov, or you may access this
Federal Register document via the EPA's internet site under the Federal
Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC
Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the
EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; its
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or email the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for instructions. Updates
regarding the Public Reading Room access are available at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data used
that support your views.

    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    5. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the
docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the
first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date and
Federal Register citation.

D. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate by providing comments in this meeting by
following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt of
your comments by the EPA, it is imperative that you identify Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0564 in the subject line on the first page of your
request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to and including Friday, August 8, 2014. To the extent that
time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be
permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments during the
meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments
to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via
email) to Jim Downing under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later
than noon, Eastern Time, Friday, August 8, 2014, in order to be
included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the
HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Official to review the meeting
agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. The request
should identify the name of the individual making the presentation and
the organization (if any) the individual will represent. Oral comments
before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per individual or
organization. Please note that this includes all individuals appearing
either as part of, or on behalf of, an organization. While it is our
intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics
issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations
to expand the time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up
separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available,
further public comments may be possible.
    2. Written comments. Please submit written comments prior to the
meeting. For the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should
submit your comments at least five business days prior to the beginning
of this teleconference. If you submit comments after this date, those
comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should
recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider
those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit
written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such
comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, Friday, August 8, 2014. You
should submit your comments using the instructions in Section I, under
subsection C, ``What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the
EPA?'' In addition, the EPA also requests that persons submitting
comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments
to Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is
no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the
HSRB.

E. Background

    The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 9. The
HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA on
issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects
research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and
recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols; (2) reports
of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen
the EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research. The
HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through the EPA Science Advisor.
    1. Topics for Discussion. The HSRB will be reviewing its draft
report from the June 11, 2014 HSRB meeting. The HSRB may also discuss
planning for future HSRB meetings. Background on the June 11, 2014 HSRB
meeting can be found at the HSRB Web site: http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb.
The June 11, 2014 meeting draft report is available. You may obtain
electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents
that might be available electronically, from regulations.gov and the
HSRB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb. For questions on document
availability or if you do not have internet access, consult the persons
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    2. Meeting minutes and reports. Minutes of the meeting, summarizing
the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory
committee regarding such matters, will be released within 90 calendar
days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov. In addition,
information regarding the HSRB final meeting report will be found at
http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb and http://www.regulations.gov or from the
persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Robert Kavlock,
Interim Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2014-18221 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63579-63581]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26688]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0022; FRL-9987-60-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Removal of Obsolete Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
removal of outdated rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for
the State of Oregon because they are duplicative or obsolete. Removal
of such material from the air program subparts is designed to improve
cost effectiveness and usability of the CFR. The EPA is also approving
non-substantive revisions to reflect updated citations and correcting a
typographical error. This final action makes no substantive changes to
the Oregon State Implementation Plan and imposes no new requirements.

DATES: This action is effective on January 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0022. 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., 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 at 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: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, at
(360) 753-9081, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    This action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. It is intended to reduce
the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by
identifying those rules in 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, for the State of
Oregon that are duplicative or obsolete. This action removes historical
information and rules that no longer have any use or legal effect
because they have been superseded by subsequently approved state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions or they are no longer necessary
because the EPA previously promulgated administrative rule actions to
replace these sections with summary tables in 40 CFR 52.1970 (78 FR
74012, December 10, 2013). On October 10, 2010, the EPA proposed to
approve these changes and received no comments on our proposed
rulemaking (83 FR 50867).

II. Final Action

    This final action is a ``housekeeping'' exercise that removes
duplicative or obsolete CFR provisions and corrects a non-substantive
typographical error. The EPA is approving the removal of 40 CFR
52.1973, 40 CFR 52.1974 paragraphs (b) and (c), 40 CFR 52.1977, and 40
CFR 52.1982; and approving the amendment to 40 CFR 52.1974(a). The EPA
is removing the duplicative or obsolete rules because they have been
revised or superseded by subsequently approved SIP revisions. These
actions make no substantive changes to the SIP. The changes will be
accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM for the State of
Oregon.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2019. 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 19, 2018.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 MM--Oregon

Sec.  52.1973  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Section 52.1973 is removed and reserved.

0
3. Section 52.1974 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1974  Original identification of plan section.

    (a) This section identified the original ``State of Oregon Clean
Air Act Implementation Plan'' and all revisions submitted by Oregon
that were federally approved prior to July 1, 2013. The information in
this section is available in the 40 CFR, part 52, Volume 4 (Sec.
52.1970 to End) edition revised as of July 1, 2013.
    (b)-(c) [Reserved]

Sec.  Sec.  52.1977 and 52.1982  [Removed and Reserved]

0
4. Sections 52.1977 and 52.1982 are removed and reserved.

0
5. In Sec.  52.1988, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1988  Air contaminant discharge permits.

    (a) Except for compliance schedules under OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>,
emission limitations and other provisions contained in Air Contaminant
Discharge Permits issued by the State in accordance with the provisions
of the Federally-approved rules for Air Contaminant Discharge Permits
(OAR chapter 340, Division 216), Plant Site Emission Limit (OAR chapter
340, Division 222), Alternative Emission Controls (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>)
and Public Participation (OAR chapter 340, Division 209), shall be
applicable requirements of the Federally-approved Oregon SIP (in
addition to any other provisions) for the purposes of section 113 of
the Clean Air Act and shall be enforceable by EPA and by any person in
the same manner as other requirements of the SIP. Plant site emission
limits and alternative emission limits (bubbles) established in Federal
Operating Permits issued by the State in accordance with the Federally-
approved rules for Plant Site Emission Limit (OAR chapter 340, Division
222) and Alternative Emission Controls (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>), shall be
applicable requirements of the Federally-approved Oregon SIP (in
addition to any other

provisions) for the purposes of section 113 of the Clean Air Act and
shall be enforceable by EPA and by any person in the same manner as
other requirements of the SIP.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-26688 Filed 12-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47101-47102]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0359; FRL-9886-02-R8]

Air Plan Approval; North Dakota; Removal of Exemptions to Visible
Air Emissions Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to North Dakota's State Implementation
Plan (SIP) which it received on November 11, 2016. The revision was
submitted by the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) in response
to EPA's finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published on
June 12, 2015 for a provision in the North Dakota SIP related to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA
is finalizing approval of the SIP revision and finds that the SIP
revision corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP
call.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0359. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the docket, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., 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 www.regulations.gov,
or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it refers to EPA.

I. Background

    On June 2, 2022 (87 FR 33461), EPA proposed to approve a November
11, 2016 SIP revision submitted by the State of North Dakota, through
NDDH.\1\ In that proposal, we proposed to determine that the SIP
revision corrects the deficiency with respect to North Dakota's SIP
that we identified in our June 12, 2015 action entitled ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to
Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,''
(80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM
SIP Action.'' The reasons for our proposed approval and determination
are stated in the proposed action (87 FR 33461, June 2, 2022) and will
not be restated here. The public comment period for our proposed
approval and determination ended on July 5, 2022, and one comment in
support of final approval was received. Therefore, we are finalizing
our action as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2017, the North Dakota state legislature created a new
State Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ) that assumed all
the duties and responsibilities of the NDDH's Environmental Health
Section. To accommodate the new NDDEQ, the North Dakota Air
Pollution Control Law was recodified in the North Dakota Century
Code (NDCC) as NDCC 23.1-06 and the Air Pollution Rules were
recodified in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) as NDAC
33.1-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving North Dakota's SIP revision which we received on
November 11, 2016. The revision removes provision 33.1-15-03-04.3 from
North Dakota's SIP.\2\ EPA has also determined that this SIP revision
corrects the deficiency identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In North Dakota's November 11, 2016 SIP submission, the
State refers to provision 33-15-03.04.3. However, shortly after
North Dakota submitted the SIP revision to EPA, the State created a
new environmental agency and North Dakota's Air Pollution rules were
recodified as 33.1-15 instead of 33-15. Therefore, the current and
correct codification of the provision which is being removed under
this action is 33.1-15-03-04.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ``33.1-15-03-
04.3'' in 40 CFR 52.1820. As described in Section II of this preamble,
EPA's finalization of the revision of ``33.1-15-03-04'' incorporates
the removal of provision ``33.1-15-03-04.3''. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 removal of state law not meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
already 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
    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).
    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 October 3, 2022. 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 25, 2022.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    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 JJ--North Dakota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1820, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``33.1-15-03-04'' under the heading ``33.1-15-03. Restriction
of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           State
             Rule No.                          Rule title                effective    EPA  effective  Final rule citation/date          Comments
                                                                           date             date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             33.1-15-03. Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
33.1-15-03-04....................  Exceptions.......................          7/1/16          9/1/22  [insert Federal Register  This revision removes
                                                                                citation], 8/2/22.        provision ``33.1-15-03-
                                                                                04.3''.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-16276 Filed 8-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26588-26594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10175]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91809; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the
National Securities Clearing Corporation's Minimum Required Fund
Deposit

May 10, 2021.
    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 April 26, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to NSCC's Rules
& Procedures (``Rules'') \3\ in order to increase the minimum Required
Fund Deposit for each Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at https://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NSCC is proposing to increase the minimum Required Fund Deposit, as
described in greater detail below.

The Minimum Required Fund Deposit
    As part of its market risk management strategy, NSCC manages its
credit exposure to Members by determining the appropriate Required Fund
Deposits to the Clearing Fund and monitoring its sufficiency, as
provided for in the Rules.\4\ The Required Fund Deposit serves as each
Member's margin. The objective of a Member's Required Fund Deposit is
to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidation of the
Member's portfolio in the event NSCC ceases to act for that Member
(hereinafter referred to as a ``default'').\5\ The aggregate of all
Members' Required Fund Deposits, together with certain other deposits
required under the Rules, constitutes the Clearing Fund of NSCC, which
it would access, among other instances, should a defaulting Member's
own Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC
caused by the liquidation of that Member's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund
Formula and Other Matters) (``Procedure XV''), supra note 3. NSCC's
market risk management strategy is designed to comply with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(4) under the Act, where these risks are referred to as
``credit risks.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
    \5\ The Rules identify when NSCC may cease to act for a Member
and the types of actions NSCC may take. For example, NSCC may
suspend a firm's membership with NSCC or prohibit or limit a
Member's access to NSCC's services in the event that Member defaults
on a financial or other obligation to NSCC. See Rule 46
(Restrictions on Access to Services) of the Rules, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Rules, each Member's Required Fund Deposit amount
consists of a number of applicable components, each of which is
calculated to address specific risks faced by NSCC, as identified
within Procedure XV.\6\ Currently, each Member is required to maintain
a minimum Required Fund Deposit amount of $10,000.\7\ If a Member's
Required Fund Deposit, as calculated by Procedure XV, is less than
$10,000 on a given day, NSCC requires a deposit to bring the Member's
Required Fund Deposit up to $10,000. The first 40% of a Member's
Required Fund Deposit, but no less than the minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount of $10,000, is required to be in cash.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Procedure XV, supra note 3.
    \7\ Section 1 of Rule 4, supra note 3.
    \8\ Section II.(A) of Procedure XV, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC's margining methodologies are designed to mitigate market,
liquidity and other risks. NSCC regularly assesses its margining
methodologies to evaluate whether margin levels are commensurate with
the particular risk attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and
market. In connection with such regular reviews, NSCC has determined
that there are circumstances where the current minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount is insufficient to manage NSCC's risk in the event of an
abrupt or sudden increase in a Member's activity.
    NSCC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
Member's Required Fund Deposit.\9\ NSCC compares the Required Fund
Deposit \10\ for each Member with the simulated liquidation gains/
losses using the actual positions in the Member's portfolio, and the
actual historical security returns. A backtesting deficiency occurs
when NSCC determines that a Member's Required Fund Deposit would not
have been adequate to address the projected liquidation losses
estimated from a Member's settlement activity based on the backtesting
results. NSCC investigates the cause(s) of any backtesting
deficiencies. As a part of this investigation, NSCC pays particular
attention to Members with backtesting deficiencies that bring the
results for that Member below the 99% confidence target (i.e., greater
than two backtesting deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month period)
to determine if there is an identifiable cause of repeat backtesting
deficiencies.\11\ NSCC also evaluates whether multiple Members may
experience backtesting deficiencies for the same underlying reason.
Backtesting deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject NSCC to
potential losses under normal market conditions in the event that a
Member defaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Model Risk Management Framework (``Model Risk Management
Framework''), Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81485 (August 25,
2017), 82 FR 41433 (August 31, 2017) (NSCC-2017-008) (sets forth the
model risk management practices of NSCC and states that Value at
Risk (``VaR'') and Clearing Fund requirement coverage backtesting
would be performed on a daily basis or more frequently) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84458 (October 19, 2018), 83 FR
53925 (October 25, 2018) (File No. SR-NSCC-2018-009) (amends the
Model Risk Management Framework).
    \10\ Members may be required to post additional collateral to
the Clearing Fund in addition to their Required Fund Deposit amount.
See e.g, Rule 15 (Assurance of Financial Responsibility and
Operational Capability), supra note 3 (providing that adequate
assurances of financial responsibility of a Member may be required,
such as increased Clearing Fund deposits). For backtesting
comparisons, NSCC uses the Required Fund Deposit amount, without
regard to the actual, total collateral posted by the Member to the
Clearing Fund.
    \11\ The 99% confidence target is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii) which requires NSCC to calculate margin to cover its
``potential future exposure'' which is defined in Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(13) to mean the ``maximum exposure estimated to occur at a
future point in time with an established single-tailed confidence
level of at least 99 percent with respect to the estimated
distribution of future exposure.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(13),
(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While multiple factors may contribute to a Member's backtesting
deficiency, a position increase by a Member after the calculation of
such Member's Required Fund Deposit may be a factor that leads to the
Member incurring backtesting deficiencies due to the additional
exposure that is not mitigated until the collection of the Required
Fund Deposit occurs intraday, or on the next business day. This factor
is heightened for those Members that maintain a low or minimum Required
Fund Deposit because there are less deposits to mitigate the additional
exposure caused by a position increase.
    Typical examples where Members may be maintaining a minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount of $10,000 include (1) when a new Member
has activated its clearing accounts at NSCC and is growing its
business; (2) when a Member generally has limited or infrequent
transaction activity; and (3) when a Member is winding down its
business and is in the process of retiring its NSCC membership. In each
of these circumstances, an abrupt increase in clearing activity
following a period of low or no clearing activity could cause NSCC to
be under-margined with respect to the Member and may result in
backtesting deficiencies. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to increase the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount of $10,000 to address the risk
that NSCC becomes under-margined in circumstances when a Member is
subject to the current minimum Required Fund Deposit amount. As
discussed below, NSCC has observed that Members that maintain a
Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 disproportionately account
for the number of Members with a confidence target below 99% due to
repeat backtesting deficiencies.
    In determining the appropriate minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount, NSCC reviewed varying minimum Required Fund Deposit amounts to
determine the anticipated effects of increasing the minimum Required
Fund Deposits on Clearing Fund coverage and on backtesting results.
NSCC also conducted a review of minimum deposit requirements of
registered clearing agencies and foreign central counterparty clearing
houses (``CCPs'') to compare NSCC's minimum Required Fund Deposit with
the deposits required by registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs.
As discussed below, based on the results of the reviews and the
comparison of other registered clearing agencies and foreign

CCPs, NSCC believes that a proposed minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount of $250,000 would provide an appropriate balance of improving
Member backtesting results and NSCC's Clearing Fund coverage, while
minimizing the impact to Members.
    NSCC conducted a review of backtesting deficiencies during the
period from June 3, 2019 to May 29, 2020 (``Impact Study Period'') to
determine the anticipated backtesting coverage using $250,000 as the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount and amounts lower and higher than
$250,000. The results of the reviews indicated that using $250,000 as
its minimum Required Fund Deposit amount would improve NSCC's rolling
twelve-month Clearing Fund coverage and reduce the number of Members
with backtesting coverage below 99%.\12\ Based on a review of
backtesting deficiencies during the Impact Study Period, approximately
22% of backtesting deficiencies occurred with Members that maintained a
Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000. In addition, those Members
that maintained a Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 had a
disproportionate amount of repeat backtesting deficiencies and were
more likely to have backtesting coverage below the 99% confidence
target. During the Impact Study Period, 29 Members fell below the 99%
confidence target. Deficiencies that occurred for Members with a
Required Fund Deposit lower than $250,000 accounted for 22% of the
total backtesting deficiencies, while Members that maintained a
Required Fund Deposit lower than $250,000 constituted approximately 45%
of the Members that fell below the 99% confidence target. If the
proposed changes had been in place, those Members would constitute only
27% of Members that fell below the 99% confidence target which is
comparable to those Members' overall representation as a class.
Approximately 88% of the deficiencies that occurred on the days when
Members maintained a Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 would
have been eliminated during that period if the Required Fund Deposit
were $250,000 or higher. During the Impact Study Period, NSCC observed
a total of 227 backtesting deficiencies. If a minimum requirement of
$250,000 had been assessed, 44 deficiencies would have been eliminated
across 13 Members. Overall a $250,000 minimum requirement would have
increased NSCC's twelve-month coverage by 0.14% to 99.41%, eliminated
44 deficiencies, improved rolling twelve-month coverage for 7 Members
to above 99% compared to 5 Members if a $100,000 minimum Required Fund
Deposit had been applied, and improved the rolling twelve-month
coverage for 6 additional Members. The review of backtesting
deficiencies during the Impact Study Period also indicated that raising
the minimum Required Fund Deposit to $250,000 would decrease
backtesting deficiencies to a greater extent than raising it to a lower
amount such as $100,000 and would increase the Clearing Fund coverage
to a greater extent.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Backtesting percentages indicate the risk that a minimum
Required Fund Deposit will be insufficient to manage risk in the
event of a Member's default. A backtesting coverage that is below
the 99% confidence target for a Member means that the Member has
more than two backtesting deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month
period. As indicated above, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii),
NSCC pays particular attention to Members with backtesting
deficiencies that bring the results for that Member below the 99%
confidence target to determine if there is an identifiable cause of
repeat backtesting deficiencies. See supra note 9.
    \13\ Over the Impact Study Period, if the minimum Required Fund
Deposit had been set to $250,000 compared to $100,000, there would
have been 10 more backtesting deficiencies eliminated; overall
increasing the 12-month backtesting coverage percentage by 0.03% to
99.41%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC's review of the requirements of other clearing agencies and
foreign CCPs indicated that NSCC's minimum Required Fund Deposit
requirement of $10,000 was significantly lower than minimum deposits or
equivalent required by such other entities.\14\ While the minimum
required fund deposits of such other entities is not dispositive as to
the risk borne by NSCC or the proper fund deposit amounts to offset
such risk, it is indicative of the amounts that users of other
similarly situated entities can expect to pay as a minimum required
fund deposit to use the services of the clearing agencies and foreign
CCPs and the impact to such users. The comparison shows that entities
using other clearing agencies and foreign CCPs pay significantly more
in minimum fund deposits to use similar services than the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount at NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the minimum initial contribution for The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') is $500,000. See Rule 1002(d)
of the OCC Rules, available at https://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/occ_rules.pdf. The minimum Required Fund
Deposit for both the Government Securities Division (``GSD'') and
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') of Fixed Income
Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') is $100,000. See Rule 4 of FICC GSD
Rulebook, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf and Rule 4 of the FICC MBSD Clearing
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/rules/ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the backtesting results discussed above and the impact to
Members of raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to
$250,000, NSCC believes that raising it to $250,000 is the appropriate
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount that will minimize the financial
impact to its Members while maximizing risk management of activity that
is guaranteed at the point of validation or comparison by NSCC.
    As is currently provided for in the Rules, NSCC is proposing to
continue to require that Members deposit an amount equal to the minimum
Required Fund Deposit in cash.\15\ NSCC permits Members to satisfy
their Required Fund Deposit obligations through a combination of cash
and open account indebtedness secured by Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities.\16\ Cash deposits are fungible. NSCC would be therefore be
further strengthening its liquidity resources by requiring each Member
to deposit a baseline of $250,000 in cash to the Clearing Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section II.(A) of Procedure XV, supra note 3.
    \16\ Rule 4, Section 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Changes
    In order to implement the proposed increase in the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount to $250,000, Section 1 of Rule 4 would be revised
to state that the minimum Required Fund Deposit for each Member shall
be $250,000. In addition, Section II.(A) of Procedure XV would be
revised to replace the minimum contribution amount from $10,000 to
$250,000. Section II.(A) of Procedure XV currently provides that no
less than $10,000, the minimum Required Fund Deposit, of a Member's
Required Fund Deposit must be in cash.\17\ To reflect the increase in
the minimum Required Fund Deposit, NSCC would also increase the minimum
cash requirement to $250,000 to match the proposed increased minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Section II.(A) of Procedure XV, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Timeframe
    NSCC would implement the proposed changes no later than 20 Business
Days after the approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission.
NSCC would announce the effective date of the proposed changes by
Important Notice posted to its website.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed changes described above are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing
agency. In particular, NSCC believes that the proposed changes are
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\18\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii), each promulgated under the Act,\19\ for
the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of NSCC be
designed to, among other things, assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible.\20\ NSCC believes the proposed changes are
designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in its custody or control or for which it is responsible because they
are designed to enable NSCC to require the necessary margin for Members
who maintain a minimum Required Fund Deposit to limit its exposure to
such Members in the event of a Member default. Having adequate margin
for such Members would help ensure that NSCC does not need to use its
own resources, or the Eligible Clearing Fund Securities and funds of
non-defaulting Members, to cover losses in the event of a default of
such Members. Specifically, the proposed rule change seeks to remedy
potential situations that are described above where NSCC could be
under-margined. By ensuring that Members that maintain the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount are adequately covering NSCC's risk of
loss, NSCC would be reducing the risk of losses, which would need to be
addressed by using non-defaulting Members' securities or funds, or NSCC
funds. In addition, by requiring that Members pay an amount equal to
the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in cash, NSCC would be making
available additional collateral that is easier to access upon a
Member's default, further reducing the risk of losses and using non-
defaulting Members' securities or funds, or NSCC funds. Therefore, NSCC
believes the proposed rule change enhances the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are in the custody or control of NSCC,
consistent with Section 17(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that NSCC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to Members and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining
sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each
Member fully with a high degree of confidence.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC believes that the proposed changes would
enable it to better identify, measure, monitor, and, through the
collection of Members' Required Fund Deposits, manage its credit
exposures to Members by maintaining sufficient resources to cover those
credit exposures fully with a high degree of confidence. More
specifically, as a review of backtesting deficiencies during the Impact
Study Period has indicated, raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount to $250,000 would decrease the number of backtesting
deficiencies and help ensure that NSCC maintains the coverage of credit
exposures for more Members at a confidence level of at least 99%. In
addition, by requiring that Members pay an amount equal to the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount in cash, NSCC would be making available
collateral that is easier to access when Members default further
reducing the risk of losses, which would require using non-defaulting
Members' securities or funds, or NSCC funds. Therefore, NSCC believes
that the proposed changes would enhance NSCC's ability to effectively
identify, measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures and would
enhance its ability to maintain sufficient financial resources to cover
its credit exposure to each Member fully with a high degree of
confidence. As such, NSCC believes the proposed changes are consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act requires that NSCC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its Members by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, calculates
margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to Members in
the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of
positions following a Member default.\24\ NSCC employs daily
backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Member's Required Fund
Deposit paying particular attention to Members that have backtesting
deficiencies below the 99% confidence target. Such backtesting
deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject NSCC to potential
losses if a Member defaults. As discussed above, NSCC has determined
that approximately 22% of all backtesting deficiencies occur for those
Members that maintain a Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 and
that approximately 88% of the deficiencies of those Members would have
been eliminated during the Impact Study Period if the Required Fund
Deposit were $250,000 or higher. By raising the minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount to $250,000, NSCC believes it can decrease the
backtesting deficiencies by Members, and thus decrease exposure to such
Members in the event of a default. NSCC believes that the increase in
margin for those Members that currently maintain a Required Fund
Deposit of less than $250,000 would improve the probabilities that the
margin maintained by such Members is sufficient to cover its potential
future exposure to Members in the interval between the last margin
collection and the close out of positions following a Member default.
Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change is consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC believes that the proposed changes to increase the minimum
Required Fund Deposit could have an impact on competition.
Specifically, NSCC believes that the proposed changes could burden
competition because they would result in larger Required Fund Deposits
for Members in cash that currently have Required Fund Deposits of less
than $250,000. The proposed changes could impose more of a burden on
those Members that have lower operating margins, lower cash reserves or
higher costs of capital compared to other Members. NSCC believes that
any burden on competition imposed by the proposed changes would not be
significant and would be both necessary and appropriate in furtherance
of NSCC's efforts to mitigate risks and meet the requirements of the
Act, as described in this filing and further below.
    NSCC believes that any burden on competition presented by the
proposed changes to increase the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount
would not be significant. As discussed above, NSCC believes that the
increase to $250,000 is consistent with what users of other similarly
situated registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs are expected to
pay as a required deposit for similar services. In addition, by
limiting

the proposed Required Fund Deposit to $250,000 rather than a higher
minimum Required Fund Deposit, NSCC would be minimizing the financial
impact to its Members while maximizing risk management of activity that
is guaranteed at the point of validation or comparison by NSCC.
    While an increase to $100,000 rather than $250,000 would also
reduce backtesting deficiencies, it would not reduce it to the same
extent as if the minimum Required Fund Deposit were raised to $250,000.
If the minimum Required Fund Deposit were raised to $250,000 rather
than $100,000, NSCC would have observed 10 more backtesting
deficiencies eliminated. If the minimum Required Fund Deposit was
increased to $100,000, the 12-month rolling backtesting coverage
percentage across NSCC would improve from 99.27% to 99.38%; an increase
to $250,000 would improve the coverage to 99.41%. Backtesting
deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject NSCC to potential
losses under normal market conditions in the event that a Member
defaults. NSCC believes that the additional reduction in exposure that
would occur if the minimum Required Fund Deposit were raised to
$250,000 rather than $100,000 justifies added expense to the Members
who currently have a minimum Required Fund Deposit of less than
$250,000.
    Even if the burden were deemed significant with respect to certain
Members, NSCC believes that the above described burden on competition
that may be created by the proposed changes would be necessary in
furtherance of the Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act,\26\ because, as described above, the Rules must be designed to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in NSCC's
custody or control or which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, NSCC believes these proposed changes are
necessary to support NSCC's compliance with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and
17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act,\27\ which require NSCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to (x) effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to Members and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining
sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each
Member fully with a high degree of confidence; and (y) cover its credit
exposures to its Members by establishing a risk-based margin system
that, at a minimum, calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential
future exposure to Members in the interval between the last margin
collection and the close out of positions following a Member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC believes increasing the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount to $250,000 would decrease the number of
backtesting deficiencies and ensure that NSCC maintains the coverage of
credit exposures for more Members at a confidence level of at least
99%. This outcome is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) which
requires that NSCC calculate sufficient margin to cover its ``potential
future exposure'' which is defined as the ``maximum exposure estimated
to occur at a future point in time with an established single-tailed
confidence level of at least 99 percent with respect to the estimated
distribution of future exposure.'' \28\ NSCC also believes that the
increase in margin for those Members that currently maintain a Required
Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 would help ensure that the margin
deposited by such Members is sufficient to cover NSCC's potential
future exposure in the interval between the last margin collection and
the close out of positions following a Member default. Therefore, NSCC
believes that these proposed changes would better limit NSCC's credit
exposures to Members, consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii). See also 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(a)(13) (definition of ``potential future exposure'').
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes that the above described burden on competition that
could be created by the proposed changes would be appropriate in
furtherance of the Act because such changes have been appropriately
designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible, as
described in detail above. The proposal would enable NSCC to produce
margin levels more commensurate with the risks it faces as a central
counterparty. The increase in minimum Required Fund Deposit would be in
relation to the credit exposure risks presented by the class of Members
that currently maintain a Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000,
and each Member's Required Fund Deposit would continue to be calculated
with the same parameters and at the same confidence level for each
Member. Therefore, Members that present similar risk, regardless of the
type of Member, would have similar impacts on their Required Fund
Deposit amounts. In addition, based on the comparison of other
registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs, NSCC believes that the
increase to $250,000 is consistent with what users of other similarly
situated registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs are expected to
pay and would not be a significant burden on Members. In many cases,
other registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs require greater
minimum fund deposit amounts. In addition, based on the results of the
review of backtesting deficiencies during the Impact Study Period as
discussed above, NSCC believes that a proposed minimum Required Fund
Deposit of $250,000 would provide an appropriate balance of improving
Member backtesting results and NSCC's Clearing Fund coverage, while
minimizing the impact to Members by not raising the minimum Required
Fund Deposit above $250,000. Therefore, because the proposed changes
are designed to provide NSCC with a more appropriate and complete
method of managing the risks presented by each Member and to minimize
the impact to Members, NSCC believes the proposal is appropriately
designed to meet its risk management goals and its regulatory
obligations.
    NSCC believes that it has designed the proposed changes in a way
that is both necessary and appropriate to meet compliance with its
obligations under the Act. Specifically, the proposal to increase the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to $250,000 would better limit
NSCC's credit exposures to its Members. In addition, by continuing to
require that Members pay an amount equal to the minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount in cash, NSCC would be making available additional
collateral that is easier for NSCC to access upon a Member's default,
further limiting its credit exposure to Members. Therefore, as
described above, NSCC believes the proposed changes are necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of NSCC's obligations under the Act,
specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \30\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act.\31\ For these
reasons, the proposed changes are not designed to be an artificial
barrier to entry but a necessary and appropriate changes to address
specific risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(iii).

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

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC conducted Member outreach with each Member that had an average
Required Fund Deposit of less than $500,000 for the twelve-month period
ending May 2019 to provide notice and an opportunity to discuss the
proposed changes. One Member stated that it had an objection to the
proposal to raise the minimum Required Fund Deposit from $10,000 to
$250,000 and stated that (i) the proposed changes would solely burden
the least active and lowest risk firms, (ii) the proposed changes do
not have correlation with risk or any appropriate cost allocation at
NSCC, (iii) the proposed changes are purely a tax on small firms and
NSCC is intent on creating artificial barriers to entry through
unjustified capital requirements and (iv) the current policies,
procedures and standards are more than adequate to guard against risk
at the small firm-level.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The letter sent by the Member also contained comments
relating to another proposal that are not addressed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed changes would not solely burden the least
active and lowest risk firms. Members that maintain a minimum Required
Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 do include smaller firms and firms
that conduct infrequent activity, but they also consist of newer firms
that are ramping up activity and firms that are winding down,
regardless of size.
    Second, the proposed changes are designed to address risk.
Backtesting results indicate that deficiencies that occurred for
Members with a Required Fund Deposit lower than $250,000 accounted for
22% of the total backtesting deficiencies, while Members that
maintained a Required Fund Deposit lower than $250,000 constituted
approximately 45% of the Members that fell below the 99% confidence
target during the Impact Study Period. If the proposed changes had been
in place, those Members would constitute only 27% of Members that fell
below the 99% confidence target which is comparable to those Members'
overall representation as a class. Backtesting deficiencies indicate a
risk that Required Fund Deposit will be insufficient to manage risk in
the event of such Member's default. For the reasons outlined above,
NSCC determined that raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit to
$250,000 was the appropriate amount to both mitigate the risk in the
event of default and minimize the burden on members by not raising the
minimum Required Fund Deposit to a higher amount.
    Third, the proposed increase to the Required Fund Deposit is not
purely a tax on small firms and is not intended as an artificial
barrier to entry. While the proposed changes would be an added expense
on certain smaller firms that currently have a Required Fund Deposit of
less than $250,000, it would apply to all firms regardless of size and
so would not be disproportionally applied. Backtesting deficiencies
indicate that firms with a minimum Required Fund Deposit expose NSCC
and other Members to risk in the event of such Member's default.
Raising the Required Fund Deposit to $250,000 would mitigate the risks
presented by those Members who have a required Fund Deposit of less
than $250,000 as outlined above. In addition, as indicated above,
although the proposed changes may be more of a burden on those Members
that have lower operating margins, lower cash reserves or higher costs
of capital compared to other Members, NSCC believes that the increase
in Required Fund Deposit is necessary and appropriate as it would apply
in relation to the credit exposure risks presented by the class of
Members that currently maintain a Required Fund Deposit of less than
$250,000. As observed in the Impact Study Period, 46 Members would be
impacted by the proposed $250,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit. On
average, 18 Members maintained excess deposit greater than the proposed
increase. Therefore, 28 Members on average would have been required to
deposit additional funds if the proposal had been implemented. In
addition, the 46 Members that would be impacted by the proposed
$250,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit, maintained excess net capital
\33\ or equity capital \34\ (as applicable) (''ENC'') in excess of $800
thousand on average over the Impact Study Period, ranging between an
average $834 thousand to $211.5 billion, with 98% of the impacted
Members having on average an ENC above $2.5 million, which can be used
to estimate impacted Members' ability to satisfy additional Required
Fund Deposit amounts required by the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For this purpose, excess net capital is the amount, as of a
particular date, equal to the difference between the net capital of
a broker or dealer and the minimum net capital such broker or dealer
must have to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c3-1(a) of the
Act (17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)), or any successor rule or regulation
thereto.
    \34\ For this purpose, equity capital is defined as the amount
defined on the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (i.e., a
``Call Report'' that is required to be filed by banks and trust
companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, as indicated by the backtesting results, NSCC believes that
the current minimum Required Fund Deposit does indicate risk with
respect to those Members that maintain a minimum Required Fund Deposit
of less than $250,000 and the increase in the minimum Required Fund
Deposit would reduce that risk. NSCC believes that increasing the
minimum Required Fund Deposit to $250,000 would provide an appropriate
balance of improving Member backtesting results and NSCC's Clearing
Fund coverage which will reduce risk for all Members, while minimizing
the impact to Members by not raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit
to a higher amount which would create more of a burden.
    Finally, the Member stated that while it objected to raising the
minimum Required Fund Deposit to $250,000, it would not object to an
increase to $100,000. NSCC observed that the increase would have
improved the Clearing Fund 12-month backtesting coverage percentage to
99.41% overall, and eliminated 10 additional backtesting deficiencies
during the Impact Study Period provided by a minimum $250,000 Required
Fund Deposit as compared to a minimum $100,000 Required Clearing Fund
Deposit. NSCC's findings validate raising the minimum to $250,000.
While an increase to a minimum Required Fund Deposit to $100,000 would
also represent an improvement of the Clearing Fund coverage, the number
of deficiencies eliminated would be fewer. If the minimum Required Fund
Deposit had been $250,000 during the Impact Study Period, NSCC would
have observed an increase in the number of eliminated deficiencies
compared to if the minimum Required Fund Deposit had been $100,000.
Backtesting deficiencies indicate a risk that the minimum Required Fund
Deposit would be insufficient in the event of a Member's default. NSCC
believes the elimination of such additional backtesting deficiencies,
together with the improvement of the overall Clearing Fund coverage
percentage to 99.41%, if the minimum Required Fund Deposit were raised
to $250,000 rather than $100,000, reflect a reduction in risk that
justifies raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit to $250,000 rather
than $100,000. As a result, NSCC believes that $250,000 is the
appropriate minimum Required Fund Deposit amount that will minimize the
financial impact to its Members while maximizing risk management of
activity

that is guaranteed at the point of validation or comparison by NSCC.
    NSCC completed an additional round of outreach to all NSCC Members
in April 2021 and did not receive any written comments. NSCC will
notify the Commission of any additional written comments received by
NSCC.

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.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2021-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-005. 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 NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-NSCC-2021-005 and should be submitted on
or before June 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10175 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 57299-57300]
[DOCID:fr05no09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12576-004]

CRD Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

October 29, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-12576-004.
    c. Date filed: February 24, 2009.
    d. Applicant: CRD Hydroelectric, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Red Rock Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Des Moines River, in Marion County, Iowa. The
project would be located at U.S. Army Corps of Engineer facilities.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Douglas A. Spaulding, Nelson Energy LLC, 8441
Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Timothy Konnert<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6359.
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: November 30, 2009.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    The proposed Red Rock Hydroelectric Project would be located at the
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Red Rock dam, which was
constructed by the Corps in 1969 for flood control. The existing Corps
facilities consist of: (1) A 110-foot-high, 6,260-foot-long earth-fill
dam with a 241-foot-long gated ogee spillway equipped with five 45-
foot-high tainter gates; and (2) a 15,253-acre reservoir with a normal
conservation pool water surface elevation of 742.0 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
    The proposed project would utilize the head created by the existing
Corps dam and consist of: (1) A new 127-foot-long by 19-foot-wide
intake structure connected to; (2) three new 19-foot-diameter, 211-
foot-long penstocks passing through the left side of the spillway
leading to; (3) a new 59-foot-long by 132-foot-wide powerhouse located
directly downstream of the existing spillway structure containing three
new 12.13-megawatt (MW) generating units with a total generating
capacity of 36.4 MW; (4) a new 8.4-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual
generation would be 158,000 megawatt-hours.
    The project would be operated in run-of-river mode and use flows
released by the Corps in accordance with its present operations.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to addess the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in Item h above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Red Rock Hydroelectric Project in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both
site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued
on October 29, 2009.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the

document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY, (202) 502-
8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26632 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P