Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code:

Laboratory Contact Person:

Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 15 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion Met? standard deviation Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) 15 ppm Diesel Sulfur Precision Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Ex REQUIRED DATA MISSING Test Method Laboratory Identification REQUIRED DATA MISSING Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information contained in this submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

15 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion  a standard deviation less than 0.72 ppm, computed from the r tests made over 20 days on samples taken from a single homogenous commerically available diese 15 ppm. The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of the analyses and no om exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. Data Entry QC Check on Test Result DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D20 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D21 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D22 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D23 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D24 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D25 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D28 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D34 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

e results of a minimum of 20 repeat sel fuel with a sulfur range of 5 to omissions. A lab facility may ory practices and it maintains DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D35 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D36 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D37 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D38 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D39 15 ppm Diesel Sulfur Accura Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code:

Laboratory Contact Person: Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 1 10 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm)

Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm)

Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) 0 REQUIRED DATA MISSING 0 0 0 0 gravimetric sulfur standard Accuracy Criterion for 1 10 ppm Test Method 0 0 Laboratory Identification 0 0 0 0 Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business con such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this s cell.)

1 to 10 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous series commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1 to 10 ppm s reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 0.54 ppm. Individual test r known chemical interferences.

REQUIRED DATA MISSING REQUIRED DATA MISSING racy Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

Is 10 20 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm) Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Concentration QC Check on ARV Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard ARV TOO LOW IN CONCENTRATION Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm)

Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Data Entry QC Check on Test Result Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D28 REQUIRED DATA MIS gravimetric sulfur standard Accuracy Criterion for 10 20 ppm confidentiality claim covering the information contained in this submission. If no PA without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled is submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent ies of at least 10 tests performed on a sulfur shall not differ from the accepted t results shall be compensated for any 10 to 20 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic avera performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfu shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) Individual test results shall be compensated for any know REQUIRED DATA MISS REQUIRED DATA MISS DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D34 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D35 Concentration QC Check on ARV ARV TOO LOW IN CONCENTRATION Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J28 MISSING rage of a continuous series of at least 10 tests lfur standard in the range of 10 to 20 ppm sulfur V) of that standard by more than 0.54 ppm. own chemical interferences.

ISSING ISSING DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J34 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J35 Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code:

Laboratory Contact Person:

Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 500 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion Met? standard deviation Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information contained in this submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.) 500 ppm Diesel Sulfur Precision Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Ex Test Method 500 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion  a standard deviation less than 9.68 ppm, computed from the repeat tests made over 20 days on samples taken from a single homogenous commerically availabl of 200 to 500 ppm. The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of the analyses may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good labo records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.

REQUIRED DATA MISSING Laboratory Identification REQUIRED DATA MISSING Data Entry QC Check on Test Result DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D20 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D21 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D22 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D23 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D24 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D25 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D28 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D34 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

the results of a minimum of 20 able diesel fuel with a sulfur range es and no omissions. A lab facility boratory practices and it maintains DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D35 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D36 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D37 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D38 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D39 500 ppm Diesel Sulfur Accuracy De Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code: Laboratory Contact Person: Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 100 200 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met?

Arithmetic Average ( ppm):

Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard:

Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard:

Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm):

Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard:

Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Test Method 0 0 Laboratory Identification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accuracy Criterion for 100 200 ppm gravimetric sulfur standard Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confid submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

100 to 200 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous serie on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 100 to 200 the accepted reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 7.26 ppm. Indiv compensated for any known chemical interferences.

REQUIRED DATA MISSING REQUIRED DATA MISSING REQUIRED DATA MISSING emonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

Is 400 500 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met?

Arithmetic Average ( ppm) Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Concentration QC Check on ARV Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard ARV TOO LOW IN CONCENTRATION Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm) Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Data Entry QC Check on Test Result Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D28 Accuracy Criterion for 400 500 ppm gravimetric sulfur standard fidentiality claim covering the information contained in this the public by EPA without further notice. All questions of ed for the information in this submission? ( Note: Please answer by ries of at least 10 tests performed 0 ppm sulfur shall not differ from dividual test results shall be 400 to 500 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a c tests performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur stand ppm sulfur shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) 7.26 ppm. Individual test results shall be compensated for any know REQUIRED DATA MISSING REQUIRED DATA MISSING REQUIRED DATA MISSING DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D34 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL D35 Concentration QC Check on ARV ARV TOO LOW IN CONCENTRATION Data Entry QC Check on Test Result DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J26 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J27 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J28 continuous series of at least 10 ndard in the range of 400 to 500 V) of that standard by more than own chemical interferences. DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J29 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J30 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J31 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J32 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J33 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J34 DATA REQUIRED IN CELL J35 Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code: Laboratory Contact Person: Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address No Is 15 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion Met? standard deviation Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 10/ 26/ 04 8: 00 AM 6.003 OK ######### 10/ 27/ 04 8: 01 AM 6.021 OK ######### 10/ 28/ 04 8: 20 AM 6.043 OK ######### 10/ 29/ 04 8: 23 AM 5.993 OK ######### 10/ 30/ 04 9: 00 AM 6.003 OK ######### 11/ 1/ 04 9: 10 AM 6.092 OK ######### 11/ 2/ 04 9: 20 AM 6.101 OK ######### 11/ 3/ 04 9: 30 AM 6.045 OK ######### 11/ 5/ 04 9: 40 AM 6.003 OK ######### 11/ 6/ 04 9: 50 AM 6.021 OK ######### 11/ 7/ 04 10: 00 AM 5.989 OK ######### 11/ 8/ 04 10: 10 AM 5.962 OK ######### 11/ 9/ 04 10: 20 AM 6.010 OK ######### 11/ 10/ 04 10: 30 AM 6.032 OK ######### 11/ 11/ 04 10: 40 AM 6.053 OK 15 ppm Diesel Sulfur Precision Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005] Test Method Total Sulfur in Liquid Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Derivatives by ASTM D 6428 99 Laboratory Identification USEPA National and Vehicle Fuels Emissions Laboratory/ OAR 2565 Plymouth Road, Mailcode AATSG Ann Arbor Michigan 48105 Joe Sopata 202 343 9034 202 343 2801 sopata. joe@ epa. gov PASSED 0.04 Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information contained in this submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

15 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion  a standard deviation less than 0.72 ppm, computed from the results of a minimum of 20 repeat tests made over 20 days on samples taken from a single homogenous commerically available diesel fuel with a sulfur range of 5 to 15 ppm. The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of the analyses and no omissions. A lab facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. ######### 11/ 12/ 04 10: 50 AM 6.050 OK ######### 11/ 13/ 04 11: 00 AM 5.989 OK ######### 11/ 14/ 04 11: 10 AM 6.033 OK ######### 11/ 15/ 04 11: 20 AM 5.939 OK ######### 11/ 16/ 04 11: 30 AM 6.042 OK 15 ppm Diesel Sulfur Accuracy Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 206 Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code: Laboratory Contact Person: Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 1 10 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm) Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard Concentration QC Check on ARV Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm) OK Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 1/ 13/ 05 8: 00 AM 7.341 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 8: 30 AM 7.562 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 9: 00 AM 7.894 OK Test Method Total Sulfur in Liquid Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Derivatives by Oxid ASTM D 6428 99 Laboratory Identification USEPA National and Vehicle Fuels Emissions Laboratory/ OAR 2565 Plymouth Road, Mailcode AATSG Ann Arbor Michigan 48105 Joe Sopata 202 343 9034 202 343 2801 sopata. joe@ epa. gov Accuracy Criterion for 1 10 ppm gravimetric sulfur standard Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim coverin contained in this submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the pub notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claim this submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

1 to 10 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1 to 10 ppm sulfur shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 0.54 ppm. Individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences.

PASSED 7.95 NIST ALDS45678 8.00 0.0515 ######### 1/ 13/ 05 9: 30 AM 8.219 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 10: 00 AM 8.234 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 10: 30 AM 8.100 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 11: 00 AM 8.114 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 11: 30 AM 7.989 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 12: 00 PM 7.687 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 12: 30 PM 8.345 OK 2060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

No Is 10 20 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm) Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard Concentration QC Check on ARV Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm) OK Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 1/ 14/ 05 8: 00 AM 13.239 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 8: 30 AM 14.231 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 9: 00 AM 13.899 OK xidative and Electrochemical Detection Accuracy Criterion for 10 20 ppm gravimetric sulfur standard ring the information ublic by EPA without further imed for the information in 10 to 20 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10 to 20 ppm sulfur shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 0.54 ppm. Individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences.

PASSED 13.91 NIST ALDS53478 13.50 0.4075 ######### 1/ 14/ 05 9: 30 AM 14.035 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 10: 00 AM 14.001 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 10: 30 AM 13.980 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 11: 00 AM 13.211 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 11: 30 AM 14.345 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 12: 00 PM 13.678 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 12: 30 PM 14.456 OK Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code:

Laboratory Contact Person:

Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address No Is 500 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion Met? standard deviation Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 10/ 26/ 04 8: 00 AM 330.023 OK ######### 10/ 27/ 04 8: 01 AM 331.234 OK ######### 10/ 28/ 04 8: 20 AM 332.897 OK ######### 10/ 29/ 04 8: 23 AM 334.598 OK ######### 10/ 30/ 04 9: 00 AM 335.998 OK ######### 11/ 1/ 04 9: 10 AM 328.359 OK ######### 11/ 2/ 04 9: 20 AM 329.062 OK ######### 11/ 3/ 04 9: 30 AM 330.108 OK ######### 11/ 5/ 04 9: 40 AM 333.730 OK ######### 11/ 6/ 04 9: 50 AM 335.092 OK ######### 11/ 7/ 04 10: 00 AM 326.340 OK 500 ppm Diesel Sulfur Precision Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005] Test Method Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength ASTM D 2622 03 Laboratory Identification USEPA National and Vehicle Fuels Emissions Laboratory/ OAR 2565 Plymouth Road, Mailcode AATSG Ann Arbor Michigan 48105 Joe Sopata 202 343 9034 202 343 2801 sopata. joe@ epa. gov PASSED 4.49 Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information contained in this submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice. All questions of confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this submission? ( Note: Please answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

500 ppm Sulfur Precision Criterion  a standard deviation less than 9.68 ppm, computed from the results of a minimum of 20 repeat tests made over 20 days on samples taken from a single homogenous commerically available diesel fuel with a sulfur range of 200 to 500 ppm. The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of the analyses and no omissions. A lab facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. ######### 11/ 8/ 04 10: 10 AM 328.903 OK ######### 11/ 9/ 04 10: 20 AM 329.863 OK ######### 11/ 10/ 04 10: 30 AM 332.998 OK ######### 11/ 11/ 04 10: 40 AM 334.001 OK ######### 11/ 12/ 04 10: 50 AM 340.100 OK ######### 11/ 13/ 04 11: 00 AM 341.102 OK ######### 11/ 14/ 04 11: 10 AM 339.887 OK ######### 11/ 15/ 04 11: 20 AM 338.776 OK ######### 11/ 16/ 04 11: 30 AM 340.002 OK 500 ppm Diesel Sulfur Accuracy Demonstration [ DLQ001: OMB # 2060 Name of Method: Organization ID No.:

Laboratory Name: Laboratory Street Address: Laboratory City: Laboratory State: Laboratory Zip code: Laboratory Contact Person: Laboratory Contact Phone Number Laboratory Contact Facsimile Number Laboratory Contact E mail Address Is 100 200 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm): Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard: Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard: Concentration QC Check on ARV Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm): OK Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard:

Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 1/ 13/ 05 8: 00 AM 150.003 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 8: 30 AM 150.030 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 9: 00 AM 150.100 OK USEPA National and Vehicle Fuels Emissions Laboratory/ OAR 2565 Plymouth Road, Mailcode AATSG Ann Arbor Michigan Test Method Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive ASTM D 2622 03 Laboratory Identification 48105 gravimetric sulfur standard Accuracy Criterion for 100 200 ppm Joe Sopata 202 343 9034 202 343 2801 sopata. joe@ epa. gov Confidential Business Information Claim. A company may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the in submission. If no such claim is made the information may be made available to the public by EPA without furthe confidentiality will be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2. Is confidentiality claimed for the information in this sub answer by typing " Yes" or " No" in the adjacent cell.)

NIST AMD4567 151.00 0.4357 100 to 200 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 100 to 200 ppm sulfur shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 7.26 ppm. Individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences.

150.56 PASSED ######### 1/ 13/ 05 9: 30 AM 149.650 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 10: 00 AM 148.500 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 10: 30 AM 150.000 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 11: 00 AM 150.100 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 11: 30 AM 151.910 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 12: 00 PM 152.130 OK ######### 1/ 13/ 05 12: 30 PM 153.220 OK 060 0566 Expires 9/ 30/ 2005]

No Is 400 500 ppm Sulfur Accuracy Criterion Met? Arithmetic Average ( ppm) Vendor Name of Gravimetric Standard Lot Identification Number of Gravimetric Standard Concentration QC Check on ARV Accepted Reference Value ( ARV) of Gravimetric Standard ( ppm) OK Difference between Arithmetic Average and ARV of Gravimetric Standard Laboratory Test Identification Number Date Time Test Result ( ppm) Data Entry QC Check on Test Result ######### 1/ 14/ 05 8: 00 AM 499.980 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 8: 30 AM 498.970 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 9: 00 AM 496.451 OK ve X ray Fluorescence Spectrometry gravimetric sulfur standard Accuracy Criterion for 400 500 ppm information contained in this her notice. All questions of ubmission? ( Note: Please 500.00 1.6047 400 to 500 ppm Accuracy Criterion  the arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 400 to 500 ppm sulfur shall not differ from the accepted reference value ( ARV) of that standard by more than 7.26 ppm. Individual test results shall be compensated for any known chemical interferences.

NIST MNV5678 498.40 PASSED ######### 1/ 14/ 05 9: 30 AM 498.670 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 10: 00 AM 495.980 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 10: 30 AM 497.560 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 11: 00 AM 499.450 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 11: 30 AM 497.890 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 12: 00 PM 499.012 OK ######### 1/ 14/ 05 12: 30 PM 499.990 OK


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53363-53364]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19001]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0090; FRL-10014-30-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan Regulation, Subpart J (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), The National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Regulation (EPA ICR Number
1664.12, OMB Control Number 2050-0141) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through October 31, 2020. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on November 27, 2019
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPA-2006-0090, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Hoffman, Regulations
Implementation Division, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code
5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-2620; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the

EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) renewal
supports activities to implement the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Subpart J (40 CFR
300.900), ``Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals.''
    The use of bioremediation agents, dispersants, surface washing
agents, surface collecting agents and miscellaneous oil spill control
agents in response to oil spills in U.S. waters or adjoining shorelines
is governed by Subpart J of the NCP regulation (40 CFR 300.900).
Subpart J requirements include criteria for listing oil spill
mitigating agents on the NCP Product Schedule, hereafter referred to as
the Schedule. EPA's regulation, which is codified at 40 CFR 300.00,
requires that EPA prepare a schedule of ``dispersants, other chemicals,
and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be
used in carrying out the NCP.'' The Schedule is required by section
311(d)(2)(G) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. The Schedule is used by Federal On-Scene
Coordinators (FOSCs), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and Area Planners
to identify spill mitigating agents in preparation for and response to
oil spills.
    Under Subpart J, manufacturers who want to add a product to the
Schedule must submit technical product data to the EPA as stipulated in
40 CFR 300.915. Subpart J requires the manufacturer to conduct specific
toxicity and effectiveness tests and submit the corresponding technical
product data along with other detailed information to the EPA Office of
Emergency Management, Office of Land and Emergency Management. The
Schedule is available to Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSCs),
Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and Area Committees for helping them
select the most appropriate products to use in various spill scenarios.
    As of November 2019, the Product Schedule included 105
manufacturers and 122 products (27 bioremediation agents, 19
dispersants, 17 miscellaneous oil spill control agents, two surface
collecting agents, and 57 surface washing agents). EPA estimates that
each year of this ICR renewal period, nine manufacturers will apply to
list a total of nine products on the Schedule. Therefore, over the
three-year period covered by this ICR renewal, EPA estimates an
additional 27 products may be listed. Additionally, EPA estimates that
eight manufacturers will submit product information to EPA to obtain a
sorbent certification letter annually.
    At 40 CFR 300.920(c), respondents may claim certain information in
the technical product data submissions as confidential business
information. EPA will handle such claims pursuant to the provisions in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Such information must be submitted separately
from non-confidential information, clearly identified, and clearly
marked ``Confidential Business Information.'' If the applicant fails to
make such a claim at the time of submittal, EPA may make the
information available to the public without further notice.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include, but are not
limited to, manufacturers of bioremediation agents, dispersants,
surface collecting agents, surface washing agents, miscellaneous oil
spill control agents, sorbents and other chemical agents and biological
additives used as countermeasures against oil spills.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (40 CFR 300.900).
    Estimated number of respondents: 9 (total).
    Frequency of response: Each manufacturer responds once per product
submittal.
    Total estimated burden: 310 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $95,400 (per year), includes $22,400 in
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: EPA anticipates a slight decrease of five
hours in the annual burden hours under this ICR renewal. EPA increased
the respondent burden hours by 20 percent in response to manufacturer
feedback obtained during the consultation process. However, because EPA
estimates that fewer respondents will submit information to EPA to have
a product listed on the Schedule, in addition to fewer sorbent
manufacturers submitting products for certification, the overall annual
burden estimate has decreased slightly for this ICR renewal period.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-19001 Filed 8-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                    Technical Support Document (TSD) Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electricity Utility Generating Units                                                               Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

               Incorporating RE and Demand-Side EE Impacts into                             State Plan Demonstrations

                                                                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                           Office of Air and Radiation                                                                          July 31, 2015

I. 	Introduction     This technical support document details certain demonstration requirements for Clean Power Plan (CPP) state plan submittals that must include a projection of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance by affected electric generating units (EGUs), as identified in section VIII.D.2.a(3) of the preamble. Development of a state's CO2 emission performance projection begins with an electricity demand forecast, which, depending upon the type of analytical method or model used, the state may want to reflect the impacts of renewable energy (RE) and demand-side energy efficiency (EE) policies and programs. In order to develop this electricity demand forecast, first, the state would either select an existing base case electricity demand and supply forecast or develop its own. Section II below addresses how to choose or develop a base case demand and supply forecast as well as how to document any included RE or demand-side EE measures. Second, the state may adjust this base case demand forecast to reflect the impacts of RE and demand-side EE measures included in the state plan. Section III describes how to quantify the impacts of RE and demand-side EE policies and programs and then adjust the base case demand forecast to reflect these impacts. II. 	Base Case Electricity Demand and Supply Forecasts     The CO2 emission performance projection of affected EGUs requires information from an electricity demand and supply forecast as a basis for predicting generation and emissions during the interim and final plan performance periods. This section describes the steps a state should take to demonstrate that the base case demand forecast transparently represents future demand and supply:    Step 1: Choose or develop a base case electricity demand and supply forecast.     Step 2: Document RE and demand-side EE already included in the base case electricity demand and supply forecast.        Step 1: Choose or develop a base case electricity demand and supply forecast.    A state can develop its own base case electricity demand and supply forecast or use a forecast from the following information sources:     * U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),    * North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),    * Regional transmission organizations (RTOs)/independent system operators (ISOs) (e.g., PJM Interconnection, ISO-New England, NYISO),    * Vertically integrated utilities (e.g., a large power company that operates the electricity system for a specific region), in combinations with another publically available source,    * State energy agencies (e.g., State Energy Office or Public Utility Commission (PUC)), and    * Regional councils that coordinate energy planning (e.g., Northwest Power and Conservation Council)

To develop its own state-specific base case electricity demand and supply forecast, a state would apply an annual average electricity demand growth rate derived from one of the above data sources to state or regional specific historical electricity sales data. States may also consider more comprehensive modeling approaches that calculate expected demand based on assumptions including: electricity prices, technology development, population, and economic forecasts. For the base case supply forecast, a state should inventory all generation resources available to meet state demand through the final plan performance periods, including in-state existing and anticipated capacity, and any expected imports.   Step 2: Document RE and demand-side EE measures included in the base case electricity demand and supply forecast.    Demand forecasts from different information sources reflect on-the-books RE and demand-side EE policies to varying degrees in demand and supply forecasts. The state must therefore research and document how on-the-books RE and demand-side EE programs included in the demand or supply forecast used by the state are incorporated into that. This will clarify which programs are influencing the growth rate assumptions, and the EPA will use this information to assess whether the demand and supply forecast is reasonable. This also helps ensure that impacts captured in the base case forecast are not double-counted in the base case forecast or duplicated in the state plan performance projection. A state should work with the source of the forecast to understand whether and how RE and demand-side EE policies and programs, including but not limited to the list below, are included in the base case electricity demand and supply forecast: *       EE policies or programs funded by utility ratepayers,  *       Existing federal appliance and lighting efficiency standards that are already in effect, *       Forthcoming federal appliance and lighting standards, *       State appliance or lighting efficiency standards (if applicable), *       State building energy codes, *       Renewable portfolio standards, and *       Codified local policies.

There are at least two ways that these programs are captured in an existing forecast:     1. Programs are explicitly identified, meaning the forecast shows a direct connection between the program and its impacts on energy demand or supply (MWhs),    2. Programs are indirectly, and either fully or partially, captured through econometric or other assumptions in the relevant economic model (e.g., as captured in National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)).

For all RE and demand-side EE programs included in the base case demand forecast, a state must document whether the program is captured explicitly or indirectly. In addition, a state must include the following information for on-the-books programs that are reflected in the base case forecast:    1. Policy or program name, 	    2. Whether the policy is codified in state or local rule,	    3. Year enacted,	    4. When the policy requirements sunset.

   The above requirements apply regardless of whether an RE or demand-side EE program will be used to meet the emission guidelines (e.g., to generate ERCs or as state measures). For example, assume a state with an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) in state law adopts a rate-based emission standards type state plan that requires a projection. The impacts of the on-the-books EERS may already be included in the base case demand forecast, and if so, should be documented. If the affected EGUs in the state do not need to use the energy savings (e.g., emission rate credits (ERCs) from demand-side EE) from the state's EERS to adjust their CO2 emission rates, then the state's plan demonstration would include the four pieces of information noted above about its EERS to support the reasonableness of the electricity demand forecast. If the state expects affected EGUs to use the demand-side EE impacts from the EERS to adjust their rates, then the state plan should document the eight pieces of information noted at the end of this section. Similarly, under a mass-based state measures approach where the state EERS is not included as a state measure, the state plan demonstration would include the four pieces of information noted above. If the on-the-books EERS is included as a state measure, then the plan should document the eight pieces of information noted below. This information will inform the EPA's evaluation of whether the emission standards in the state plan are achievable.    In addition to documenting for on-the-books RE or demand-side EE measures the four pieces of information noted above and whether they are directly or indirectly captured in the base case demand and supply forecast, the state plan must provide additional information on certain types of on-the-books programs. There are at least two categories of on-the-books policies and programs that must be explicitly accounted for in the base case demand and/or supply forecast and in the following manner:     * Qualifying RE and demand-side EE programs that are implemented after 2012 and impact electricity generation in 2022 or later.           o Quantify the (annual incremental and cumulative savings or generation (MWhs)) x (effective useful life) to estimate the savings that impacts demand or generation in 2022 or later.                  * Qualifying RE and demand-side EE programs that impact electricity generation in 2020 or 2021 and meet eligibility requirements in the final rule regarding the Clean Energy Incentive Program.          o Quantify the (annual incremental and cumulative savings or generation (MWhs)) x (effective useful life) to estimate the savings that impacts demand or generation in 2020 and 2021.     Because these on-the-books RE and demand-side EE measures or programs are explicitly accounted for in the base case demand forecast, the same impacts must not be represented again in the state plan performance projection. In other words, such impacts cannot be included in the CO2 emission performance projection, because they are already captured in that base case forecast.  For any RE and demand-side EE programs that are explicitly included in an EGU base case forecast and will be used to meet the CPP emission guidelines, the state must document the following information:     1.	Policy or program name, 	    2.	Whether the program is codified in state or local rule,	    3.	Year enacted,	    4.	When the program requirements sunset,    5.	Program requirements (e.g., targets in megawatt hours (MWh) or percentage),    6.	Annual energy savings or generation in the base year (MWh),    7.	Annual and cumulative energy savings or generation in the future interim and final periods (MWh), and    8.	Estimated useful lives for programs.

III.	Proper Characterization of Renewable Energy and Demand-Side Energy Efficiency in a State Plan Performance Projection    Section VIII.D.2.a.(3)(a) of the preamble explains which types of state plans require CO2 emission performance projections for affected EGUs in order to show that the state plan will lead to achievement of the CO2 emission performance rates, state goal, or other emission guideline requirements. State plans that require such a projection must include a base case electricity demand and supply forecast as well as supporting documentation, as explained in section II above. In addition, such plans must quantify the combined future impact of all the emission standards and state measures included in the state plan. This section explains the proper characterization of expected RE and demand-side EE impacts in a CO2 emission performance projection.    States that plan to use RE and demand-side EE to meet the emission guidelines (e.g., to generate ERCs or as state measures) under applicable state plan types that require a performance projection will need to project the expected incremental direct generation impacts and electricity savings of RE and demand-side EE. While RE and demand-side EE measures, programs and policies may impact the generation, construction, retirement and CO2 emissions of both affected and non-affected EGUs, a projection must demonstrate how RE and demand-side EE will enable affected EGUs to meet the emission guidelines. There are different approaches to projecting electricity savings and renewable generation, depending upon the design of an RE and demand-side EE program. Regardless of the approach chosen, a state plan that includes RE and demand-side EE must document specific assumptions in their performance projections, as described below.    A. Approaches to Estimating Future RE Generation and EE Savings    Projections of expected annual electricity savings and/or renewable energy generation are necessary inputs when projecting EGU CO2 emission performance. This is because increased RE generation will impact the generation of affected EGUs and resulting CO2 emissions. Electricity savings estimates included in EE projections will lower electricity demand forecasts in the CO2 emission performance projections. The EE projection can be used as an input, or modifier, to various models or other tools in order to demonstrate that the state plan will achieve emission guideline requirements.     A CO2 emission performance projection must include the potential impacts of RE and demand-side EE, and the state must document how those RE and demand-side EE impacts are reflected in the projection. The state can incorporate RE and demand-side EE impacts at the individual project or program level, or it can aggregate RE and demand-side EE impacts across a portfolio of programs. The EPA historically has accepted the estimation of RE and demand-side EE at an aggregated level as indicated in EPA's Bundled Measures Guidance. The state must also verify that the assumptions about RE and demand-side EE availability are reasonable, such as based on an assessment of RE and demand-side EE potential.    As discussed above, a state plan CO2 emission performance projection must not include RE and demand-side EE impacts captured in the base case electricity demand forecast. Consequently, RE and demand-side EE impacts included in the CO2 emission performance projection must be incremental to and non-duplicative of impacts included in the base case demand forecast. The performance projections, for example, could include impacts from RE and demand-side EE programs not reflected in the base case forecast or from the expansion of existing programs beyond levels reflected in the base case forecast. A state must use the following general equations to quantify the expected incremental impacts of RE and demand-side EE during the future interim and final performance periods.    Energy Efficiency:    * (Incremental first-year annual plus cumulative savings of EE program) x (effective useful life) for each interim period and final period. Determine persistent level of savings for final period and beyond.    Renewable Energy:     * (Incremental MW installed capacity) x (location- and technology-specific capacity factors) x (8760 hours) for each interim period and final period. Determine persistent level of renewable energy generation for final period and beyond.    Several tools and methods are available to help states estimate the potential direct energy impacts of RE and demand-side EE that will be used to adjust a state's electricity demand and supply forecast. States can base their electricity savings projections on past evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) reports that document impacts of similar projects or programs and that have been submitted to public service commissions or evaluated by third parties. States also can conduct their own surveys or studies to estimate the direct energy impacts of EE policies and/or use sophisticated methods, such as building simulation tools, vintaging models, production costing, and cost-of-energy analysis models.  Any methodology used must be EPA-approved, and each state is encouraged to consult with the EPA early during the plan development process about the tools and methods it intends to employ.    Assessing the potential RE and demand-side EE impacts of measures, policies or programs can involve bottom-up economic and/or engineering-based estimation techniques that are based upon a representation of the fundamentals of the technology and economic behavior. These bottom-up approaches estimate potential energy savings at a very detailed level and roll these estimates up to the statewide level. Alternatively, the potential impacts of RE and demand-side EE can be quantified based upon the design and requirements of state-level policies and regulations specified over a future time frame. The next two sections describe how a state plan CO2 performance projection would calculate the generation impacts of two common state policies: energy efficiency resource standards and renewable portfolio standards.     B. Projecting Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Resource Standards    Many states have adopted an EERS, which is a policy that sets targets for energy savings over a specified time frame from demand-side EE programs operated by utilities or other program administrators. States typically specify annual first-year or cumulative targets as percentages of electricity sales or as absolute energy savings. States use different bases for specifying EERS goals. Some specify goals based on electricity sales (in MWhs) from investor-owned utilities, while others have mandated energy savings targets based on total MWh sales or a subset of total MWh sales.     A state can quantify energy savings for use in its CO2 emission performance projection using formulas specific to the state's EERS, as described below. For this approach a state would select the appropriate sales basis, and if the basis is not total sales, a state could use recent year utility-level sales data from EIA and growth rates from EIA, an RTO/ISO, NERC or other publicly available sources to develop base case forecasts of sales of the utilities required to comply with the EERS. The design of the EERS will affect whether a state, for purposes of its CO2 emission performance projection, should assume energy savings at the EERS target level. For example, it may not be appropriate to assume full achievement of energy savings goals in an EERS that includes cost/rate caps or other design features that may not lead to incremental energy savings relative to the base case demand forecast (e.g., counting savings from building energy codes or historical EE programs).     The general formulas a state must use to quantify first-year and cumulative energy savings from an EERS policy for each year (t) are shown below, though a state may propose a different methodology if it better represents the state's EERS. Once these first-year and cumulative energy savings are quantified, the state can incorporate them into the demand forecast of its CO2 emission performance projection.        1. EERS with Annual First-Year EE Savings Targets Specified in Percent Terms           A(t) = r(t)  Z(t-1)    C(t) = A(t) + A(t-1) + ... + A(t-L+1)    I(t) = C(t) - E(t)    Z(t) = B(t) - I(t)         Where:     r is the annual first-year percent savings target,     A is the annual first-year energy savings,     L is the measure lifetime,     B is the base case sales of utilities affected by these specific policies,     C is the cumulative energy savings,     E is the cumulative savings embedded in the base case demand forecast,     I is the cumulative savings incremental to the base case demand forecast, and     Z is the adjusted sales after application of cumulative incremental savings.        For example, a representative state has an EERS first-year target of 2% for each year 2016-2018. Forecasted baseline sales of utilities in 2015 are 50,000 GWh, growing by 1% each year of the forecast period. Embedded savings are 50 GWh per year, applied to years in which first-year energy savings are realized. The measure lifetime assumed for both first-year energy savings and embedded savings is four years. Table 1 applies this example to the above formula. This is the most common type of EERS structure, and states having adopted some version of it include Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.      Table 1: Example EERS with Annual First-Year EE Savings Targets Specified in Percent Terms   2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Baseline sales of affected utilities (GWh) (B) 50,000.0 50,500.0 51,005.0 51,515.1 52,030.2 52,550.5 53,076.0 53,606.8 First-year percent savings target (%) (r)    2% 2% 2%         First-year energy savings (GWh) (A)   1,000.0 991.0 982.3         Cumulative energy savings (GWh) (C)    1,000.0 1,991.0 2,973.3 2,973.3 1,973.3 982.3 0.0 Cumulative savings embedded (GWh) (E)    50.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Cumulative savings incremental (GWh) (I)    950.0 1,891.0 2,823.3 2,823.3 1,873.3 932.3 0.0 Adjusted sales after incremental savings (GWh) (Z)  50,000.0 49,550.0 49,114.0 48,691.8 49,206.9 50,677.2 52,143.7 53,606.8                  2. EERS with Annual First-Year EE Savings Targets Specified in Absolute Terms           C(t) = A(t) + A(t-1) + ... + A(t-L+1)    I(t) = C(t) - E(t)    Z(t) = B(t) - I(t)         Where:     A is the annual first-year energy savings target,    L is the measure lifetime,     B is the base case sales of utilities affected by these specific policies,     C is the cumulative energy savings,     E is the cumulative savings embedded in the base case demand forecast,     I is the cumulative savings incremental to the base case demand forecast, and     Z is the adjusted sales after application of cumulative incremental savings.        For example, a representative state has an EERS first-year target of 1,000 GWh in 2016, increasing by about 2% per year for 2017-2018 to the absolute targets shown in the table below. Forecasted baseline sales of utilities in 2015 are 50,000 GWh, growing by 1% each year of the forecast period. Embedded savings are 50 GWh per year, applied to years in which first-year energy savings are realized. The measure lifetime assumed for both first-year energy savings and embedded savings is four years. Table 2 applies this example to the above formula. States that applied this structure during their EERS implementation include Florida, Iowa, and Oregon.         Table 2: Example EERS with Annual First-Year EE Savings Targets Specified in Absolute Terms

  2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Baseline sales of utilities (GWh) (B) 50,000.0 50,500.0 51,005.0 51,515.1 52,030.2 52,550.5 53,076.0 53,606.8 First-year energy savings (GWh) (A)   1,000.0 1,020.0 1,040.4         Cumulative energy savings (GWh) (C)    1,000.0 2,020.0 3,060.4 3,060.4 2,060.4 1,040.4 0.0 Cumulative savings embedded (GWh) (E)    50.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Cumulative savings incremental (GWh) (I)    950.0 1,920.0 2,910.4 2,910.4 1,960.4 990.4 0.0 Adjusted sales after incremental savings (GWh) (Z)  50,000.0 49,550.0 49,085.0 48,604.7 49,119.8 50,590.1 52,085.6 53,606.8                  3. EERS with Cumulative EE Savings Targets Specified in Percent Terms           A(t) = C(t)  -  C(t-1) + A(t-L)        If r(t) available,    C(t) = r(t) x B(t)    I(t) = C(t) - E(t)    Z(t) = B(t) - I(t)        If r(t) not available,    Z(t) calculated by interpolation    I(t) = B(t) - Z(t)    C(t) = I(t) + E(t)        Where:     r is the cumulative percent savings target,     A is the annual first-year energy savings,     L is the measure lifetime, 	    B is the base case sales of utilities affected by these specific policies,     C is the cumulative energy savings,     E is the cumulative savings embedded in the base case demand forecast,     I is the cumulative savings incremental to the base case demand forecast, and     Z is the adjusted sales after application of cumulative incremental savings.        For example, a representative state has an EERS cumulative target of 5% by 2018. Forecasted baseline sales of utilities in 2015 are 50,000 GWh, growing by 1% each year of the forecast period. Embedded savings are 50 GWh per year, applied to years in which first-year energy savings are realized. The measure lifetime assumed for both first-year energy savings and embedded savings is four years. Distribution of the cumulative energy savings in 2018 to the first-year savings for 2016-2018 applies the simple assumption of an equal share of savings being implemented in each year. Table 3 applies this example to the above formula. This approach is uncommon, and states that applied this structure in earlier years of their EERS policies include New York and Pennsylvania.      Table 3: Example EERS with Cumulative EE Savings Targets Specified in Percent Terms   2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Baseline sales of utilities (GWh) (B) 50,000.0 50,500.0 51,005.0 51,515.1 52,030.2 52,550.5 53,076.0 53,606.8 Cumulative percent savings target (%) (r)        5%         First-year energy savings (GWh) (A)   858.6 858.6 858.6         Cumulative energy savings (GWh) (C)    858.6 1,717.2 2,575.8 2,575.8 1,717.2 858.6 0.0 Cumulative savings embedded (GWh) (E)    50.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Cumulative savings incremental (GWh) (I)    808.6 1,617.2 2,425.8 2,425.8 1,617.2 808.6 0.0 Adjusted sales after incremental savings (GWh) (Z)  50,000.0 49,691.4 49,387.8 49,089.3 49,604.4 50,933.3 52,267.4 53,606.8               4. EERS with Cumulative EE Savings Targets Specified in Absolute Terms           A(t) = C(t)  -  C(t-1) + A(t-L)        If C(t) available,    I(t) = C(t) - E(t)    Z(t) = B(t) - I(t)        If C(t) not available,    Z(t) calculated by interpolation    I(t) = B(t) - Z(t)    C(t) = I(t) + E(t)        Where:    C is the cumulative energy savings target,     A is the annual first-year energy savings,     L is the measure lifetime,     B is the base case sales of utilities affected by these specific policies,     E is the cumulative savings embedded in the base case demand forecast,     I is the cumulative savings incremental to the base case demand forecast, and     Z is the adjusted sales after application of cumulative incremental savings.        For example, a representative state has an EERS cumulative target of 3,000 GWh by 2018.  Forecasted baseline sales of utilities in 2015 are 50,000 GWh, growing by 1% each year of the forecast period. Embedded savings are 50 GWh per year, applied to years in which first-year energy savings are realized. The measure lifetime assumed for both first-year energy savings and embedded savings is four years. Distribution of the cumulative energy savings in 2018 to the first-year savings for 2016-2018 applies the simple assumption of an equal share of savings being implemented in each year. Table 4 applies this example to the above formula. States that utilized this structure during EERS implementation include California and Hawaii.

Table 4: Example EERS with Cumulative EE Savings Targets Specified in Absolute Terms   2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Baseline sales of utilities (GWh) (B) 50,000.0 50,500.0 51,005.0 51,515.1 52,030.2 52,550.5 53,076.0 53,606.8 First-year energy savings (GWh) (A)   1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0         Cumulative energy savings (GWh) (C)    1,000.0 2,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 Cumulative savings embedded (GWh) (E)    50.0 100.0 150.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Cumulative savings incremental (GWh) (I)    950.0 1,900.0 2,850.0 2,850.0 1,900.0 950.0 0.0 Adjusted sales after incremental savings (GWh) (Z)  50,000.0 49,550.0 49,105.0 48,665.1 49,180.2 50,650.5 52,126.0 53,606.8        C. Projecting Generation Impacts from Renewable Portfolio Standards    Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) set RE targets across a specified period of time. Most often these state policies require that a specified percentage of the electricity sold by a utility comes from eligible renewable technologies (e.g., wind, solar, biomass).     A state must project annual RE generation using formulas specific to the state's RPS policy, as shown below, or an EPA-approved alternative method. Similar to the EERS approach described above, a state would select the appropriate sales basis, and if the basis is not total sales, a state could use a recent year of utility-level sales data from EIA and growth rates from EIA, an RTO/ISO, NERC or other publicly available sources to develop base case forecasts of sales for the utilities required to comply with the RPS.     The design of the RPS will affect whether a state can assume full achievement of the RPS targets. Many RPSs include provisions for alternative compliance payments, which allow an entity to pay a fee in lieu of achieving the RPS. Additionally, RPS policies may include sources that are not eligible for CPP compliance purposes. In such cases, only generation impacts from eligible RE sources should be included in a state's CO2 emission performance projection.    The general formulas a state must use to quantify annual generation impacts of an RPS policy for each year (t) are shown below, though a state may propose a different methodology if it better represents the state's RPS.        1. RPS with Annual Targets Specified in Percent of Retail Sales Terms        A(t) = r(t) x Z(t)  -  MWhineligible(t)        Where:    A is the total MWh of CPP-qualifying renewable generation in a future year,    r is the annual RPS percent RE target,    Z is the forecasted electricity sales that fall under the RPS policy, and    MWhineligible is the MWh of generation from technologies ineligible under CPP    (t) is the year      Note that each state should apply this general formula to its specific RPS design. For example, if a specified percentage of RE is required to be met by sales from investor-owned utilities and separate percentage from rural cooperatives, then the state should apply the formula individually for each class and sum the MWh for each to calculate A(t). Additionally, each state plan should estimate the MWh of generation from any technologies that fall within the scope of its RPS but outside CPP. This estimate (MWhineligible) can be based on planned and/or expected new capacities for these technologies and best-available historical capacity factors.       For example, take a representative state with an RPS target of 10% in 2015, rising to 15% by 2020. Forecasted sales in 2015 are 75,000 gigawatthours (GWh), growing in subsequent years. In 2015, the renewable requirement is 7,500 GWh, but 500 GWh of the RPS is met by technologies ineligible under the final CPP. As a result, eligible renewable generation is 7,000 GWh in 2015. Assuming the same MWhineligible in future years, the state would predict 11,500 GWh of CPP eligible renewables in 2020. The table below applies this example to the above formula. This is a common type of RPS policy. States with structures similar to this include Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Illinois.        Table 5: Example Qualifying Renewable Energy Calculation

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 RPS Target (%) 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% Forecast Sales (GWh) 75,000 76,000 77,000 78,000 79,000 80,000 Required RE Gen (GWh) 7,500 8,360 9,240 10,140 11,060 12,000 CPP Ineligible RE Gen (GWh) 500 500 500 500 500 500 CPP Eligible RE Gen (GWh) 7,000 7,860 8,740 9,640 10,560 11,500

   2. RPS with Annual Targets Specified in Absolute Capacity Terms (MW)        RPS policies often include technology "carve-outs" that specify required contributions of particular technology types. Even where these carve-outs are not specified, many different technologies can contribute to meet an RPS. The formula below illustrates three different technologies contributing to an RPS. The distinction between technology types is important in calculating RE generation from a capacity-based RPS due to the differences in the underlying operating characteristics of technologies (i.e., capacity factors). Each state should include the number of technology types that best applies to its own RPS design. In this example, each technology (1, 2, and 3) is an eligible RE resource per the final emission guidelines; a technology that is not an eligible RE resource should not be included in the formula.        A(t) = [f1(t) x C1(t) + f2(t) x C2(t) + f3(t) x C3 - (t)] x H        Where:     A is the total MWh of eligible renewable generation in a future year,      f1, f2, and f3 are annual effective capacity factors for eligible technologies 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and    C1, C2, and C3 are the eligible renewable capacities for technologies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (in MW).    H is hours in the year (8760, except leap years)        For example, take a representative state with a target of 10,000MW of wind capacity in 2015, and 100MW of solar energy. The state average wind capacity factor is 28.4% and the state average solar capacity factor is 18.7%. Wind would be expected to produce 24,878,400 MWh of energy (10,000MW x 8760 hours x 28.4%), while solar would produce 163,812 MWh (100MW x 8760 hours x 18.7%). In total the state would estimate 25,042,212 MWh of renewable generation. Table 6 applies this example to the above formula. States with structures similar to this include Texas and Iowa. Some states have overall targets specified as a percentage of sales with a specific carve out for some amount (MWh) of wind or solar energy. In order to avoid double counting, the amount of the carve-out would not be added to the overall target, as it represents a subset of the overall generation (MWh) requirement. Table 6: Example Qualifying Renewable Energy Calculation (Capacity Target)                                                                              2015                                                                            2016                                                                            2017                                                                            2018                                                                            2019                                                                            2020 Wind Target (MW)                                                                           1,000                                                                           1,100                                                                           1,200                                                                           1,300                                                                           1,400                                                                           1,500 Wind Capacity Factor (%)                                                                           28.4%                                                                           28.4%                                                                           28.4%                                                                           28.4%                                                                           28.4%                                                                           28.4% Wind Energy (GWh)                                                                           2,488                                                                           2,737                                                                           2,985                                                                           3,234                                                                           3,483                                                                           3,732 Solar Target (MW)                                                                             150                                                                             175                                                                             200                                                                             225                                                                             250                                                                             275 Solar Capacity Factor (%)                                                                           18.2%                                                                           18.2%                                                                           18.2%                                                                           18.2%                                                                           18.2%                                                                           18.2% Solar Energy (GWh)                                                                             239                                                                             279                                                                             319                                                                             359                                                                             399                                                                             438 Total Eligible Gen (GWh)                                                                           2,727                                                                           3,016                                                                           3,304                                                                           3,593                                                                           3,882                                                                           4,170        The above equations are sufficient to calculate the expected annual energy output from renewable energy associated with an RPS. As previously noted, annual capacity factor projections vary by technology and even within a technology category, depending on the location of the resource. As a result, if annual energy projections are based on aggregate capacity factors, a state should specify the location of all assumed RE generation and the source of capacity factor projections.    D. Documentation of Assumptions Related to RE and Demand-Side EE in a State Plan CO2 Performance Projection    As explained above, states that plan to use RE and demand-side EE policies and programs under a state plan approach that requires a demonstration using projections (as described in section VIII.D.2.a.(3)(a) of the preamble) must quantify for each requirement and program the expected direct electricity savings and generation impacts on affected EGUs. Further, the state plan performance demonstration must document the underlying assumptions regarding the renewable electricity generation and electricity savings impacts on affected EGUs. Specific considerations and assumptions that should be described in the state plan, when relevant, include the following:    * Energy efficiency and/or renewable energy requirement or program description:  What is the requirement/program? Who will administer it? Does it require new legislation or can a state implement it under existing authorities?    * Requirements/program time period: What year does each specific program start and end? What are the MWh targets for the interim and final performance periods, including interim steps and other applicable time periods? How will the program meet the permanent requirements in the CPP?    * Relationship to complementary or existing requirement/program(s): Will this program include any federally enforceable limits? Are state measures an expansion or extension of existing requirements or programs? If the plan includes an expansion of an existing program that allows for ineligible resources or unaffected EGUs, how does the demonstration address these impacts?       * Program focus: What sector or consumer type is the focus of the measure?     * Anticipated compliance or penetration rate: Which affected EGUs will be subject to the RE and demand-side EE policy or program? Does the projection reflect characteristics of applicable RE technologies and demand-side EE programs and policies?    * Technology performance: What technologies and/or generating capacity will be implemented? For how many years will the measure achieve electricity savings (e.g., measure life) or generate renewable electricity?  How will measure performance degrade or decay over time?    * Transmission and distribution (T&D) loss: Is there an expected increase or decrease in T&D losses that would require adjustment of the energy savings estimate?    * Resource Costs: What is the cost of saved and/or generated electricity for the RE and demand-side EE measures?      * Program Costs and Funding: What is the cost of the program, including administration costs? How it be funded?    * Resource availability: Are the projected electricity savings or renewable electricity generation levels realistic compared to the potential available?


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70230-70232]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27878]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73641; File No. 4-678]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Proposed Plan for
the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and the Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC

November 19, 2014.
    On October 14, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (together with MIAX, the ``Parties'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') a plan
for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated October 13,
2014 (``17d-2 Plan'' or the ``Plan''). The Plan was published for
comment on October 23, 2014.\1\ The Commission received no comments on
the Plan. This order approves and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73383 (October 17,
2014), 79 FR 63448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ among other things, requires every self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national securities
exchange or national securities association to examine for, and enforce
compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules,
unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section
17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\3\ Without this relief, the
statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern
of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in
more than one SRO (``common members''). Such regulatory duplication
would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \4\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\5\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \5\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\6\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\7\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs
to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that
the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among
the SROs; to remove impediments to, and

foster the development of, a national market system and a national
clearance and settlement system; and is in conformity with the factors
set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Commission approval of a plan
filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an SRO of those regulatory
responsibilities allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both MIAX and
FINRA.\9\ Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume
certain examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members
with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations. The
text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory responsibilities
with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed Plan is an
exhibit (Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC Rules
Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with FINRA, referred to herein as the
``Certification'') that lists every MIAX rule for which FINRA would
bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with
respect to MIAX members that are also members of FINRA and the
associated persons therewith (``Dual Members'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan refers to these common members as
``Dual Members.'' See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of MIAX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA,\10\ as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). In the event that a Dual Member is
the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on MIAX, the
plan acknowledges that MIAX may, in its discretion, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
Common Rules). See also paragraph 1(f) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan
(defining Regulatory Responsibilities). Paragraph 2 of the Plan
provides that annually, or more frequently as required by changes in
either MIAX rules or FINRA rules, the parties shall review and
update, if necessary, the list of Common Rules. Further, paragraph 3
of the Plan provides that MIAX shall furnish FINRA with a list of
Dual Members, and shall update the list no less frequently than once
each calendar quarter.
    \11\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, MIAX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance, examination and enforcement with respect to trading
activities or practices involving MIAX's own marketplace, including,
without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of
associated persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common
Rules); its duties and obligations as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1
under the Act; and any MIAX rules that are not Common Rules.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act\13\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \14\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members that
would otherwise be performed by MIAX and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members.
Furthermore, because MIAX and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, MIAX and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those MIAX rules, set forth in
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a common member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    According to the Plan, MIAX will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of MIAX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add MIAX rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete MIAX
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the
remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be MIAX rules
that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.\15\ FINRA will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, MIAX will also
provide FINRA with a current list of common members and shall update
the list no less frequently than once each quarter.\16\ The Commission
believes that these provisions are designed to provide for continuing
communication between the Parties to ensure the continued accuracy of
the scope of the proposed allocation of regulatory responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See paragraph 2 of the Plan.
    \16\ See paragraph 3 of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a Plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all MIAX rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for common members of MIAX and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to MIAX rules
in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a MIAX
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete a MIAX rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a MIAX rule that
is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change
would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members, also
would constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-678. The Parties shall notify all

members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the
Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-678, between FINRA and MIAX, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is further ordered that MIAX is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-678.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27878 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 21, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	October 14, 2014 Presentation to the Dallas Chapter, Texas Society of Environmental Professionals, Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

      A presentation was made by EPA to the Dallas Chapter, Texas Society of Environmental Professionals, on October 14, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.  The meeting was in Dallas, Texas.

ATTENDEES

Participants:		Large general audience

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)


[Federal Register: November 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 59974]
[DOCID:fr19no09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-13-000]

Tampa Electric Company, Complainant v. Calpine Construction
Finance Company, L.P., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 13, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 10, 2009, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) Rules and
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), Tampa Electric Company (Complainant) filed
a formal complaint against Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P.
(Respondent) requesting that the Commission issue an order vacating the
Respondent's Rate Schedule FERC No. 3, effective no later than November
10, 2009, under which the Respondent charges the Complainant for
reactive power service.
    The Complainant states that copies of the complaint were served on
the Respondent and the Florida Service Commission
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27809 Filed 11-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53468]
[DOCID:fr16se08-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
September 18, 2008 at 1 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 18, 2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    An adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21643 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40623-40624]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17989]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Performance
and Handling Requirements for Rotocraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The FAA requires that certain performance
information be provided in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual in order to
show compliance to the regulatory requirements. The flight manual, by
regulation, must be furnished with each aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0726.
    Title: Verification of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and
Medical Certification.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Performance and Handling Requirements for
Rotocraft.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27949). There were no comments.
In order to determine that a rotorcraft is a safe vehicle, an applicant
for a type certificate must show compliance to specific minimum
requirements. In order to show compliance, an applicant must
substantiate the type design through analysis, testing, design
limitations, and other acceptable means. This substantiation requires
that certain performance information for safe operation of the
rotorcraft be presented, in the form of tables, diagrams, or charts, in
the flight manual. FAA engineers and designated engineers review the
required data submittals to determine that the rotorcraft complies with
the applicable minimum safety requirements for rotorcraft performance
and that the rotorcraft has no unsafe features.
    Respondents: Approximately 4 normal or transport category
rotorcraft certification applicants.

    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy &
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-17989 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P