[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 192 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55841-55843]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0669; FRL-9116-01-OAR]

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Notice of 2022 Allowance
Allocations for Production and Consumption of Regulated Substances
Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has issued calendar year
2022 allowances for the production and consumption of
hydrofluorocarbons in accordance with the Agency's regulations
established under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of
2020. The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act directs the
Environmental Protection Agency by October 1 of each calendar year to
determine the quantity of production and consumption allowances for the
following calendar year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, telephone number:
202-564-6658; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also visit
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction for further
information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subsection (e)(2)(D)(i) of the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) directs the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine, by October 1 of
each calendar year, the quantity of allowances for the production and
consumption of regulated substances that may be used for the following
calendar year. EPA has codified the production and consumption
baselines and phasedown schedules for regulated substances in 40 CFR
84.7. Under the phasedown schedule, for 2022, total production
allowances may not exceed 344,299,157 metric tons of exchange value
equivalent (MTEVe) and total consumption allowances may not exceed
273,498,315 MTEVe.
    EPA's rulemaking titled Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program under the
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, signed September 23, 2021,
describes the process by which EPA determines the number of allowances
each entity is allocated. EPA has posted allowance allocations
consistent with this process for calendar year 2022 allowances on its
website at https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction. An allowance
allocated under the AIM Act does not constitute a property right and is
a limited authorization for the production or consumption of a
regulated substance. For 2022, EPA has set aside 2.5 million MTEVe
(MMTEVe) of allowances for production and 7.5 MMTEVe of allowances for
consumption that it intends to allocate no later than March 31, 2022.
    EPA has codified the procedure for calculating the application-
specific allowance allocation in 40 CFR 84.13. These allowances are
drawn from both the production and consumption allowance pools. EPA is
issuing ``application-specific allowances'' to end users in six
applications established by the AIM Act: Propellants in metered dose
inhalers, defense sprays, structural composite preformed polyurethane
foam for marine use and trailer use, etching of semiconductor material
or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition chambers within
the semiconductor manufacturing sector, mission-critical military end
uses, and onboard aerospace fire suppression. EPA has allocated 2022
application-specific allowances as shown in Table 1.

     Table 1--Application-Specific Allowances for Calendar Year 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of
                                                    application-specific
           Entity                  Application        allowances issued
                                                         (MTEVe) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boehringer Ingelheim........  Metered Dose                      27,789.0
                               Inhalers.
GlaxoSmithKline.............  Metered Dose                     414,448.2
                               Inhalers.
Kindeva Drug Delivery.......  Metered Dose                     541,146.0
                               Inhalers.
Lupin.......................  Metered Dose                      30,224.8
                               Inhalers.
Guardian Protective Devices.  Defense Sprays......              66,639.5
Safariland..................  Defense Sprays......              19,404.6
Security Equipment            Defense Sprays......             262,946.7
 Corporation.
Shamrock Filling............  Defense Sprays......             138,559.0
UDAP Industries.............  Defense Sprays......             116,029.3
Compsys.....................  Structural Composite              35,931.9
                               Foam.
Wabash National Corporation.  Structural Composite              11,316.7
                               Foam.
Analog Devices..............  Semiconductors......              19,652.6
Applied Materials...........  Semiconductors......              65,378.3
Broadcom....................  Semiconductors......               4,232.3
Cree........................  Semiconductors......              36,956.0
GE Global Research Center...  Semiconductors......                 184.6
GlobalFoundries.............  Semiconductors......             216,735.8
Intel Corporation...........  Semiconductors......             679,471.5
Jireh Semiconductor.........  Semiconductors......               5,628.6
Micron Technology...........  Semiconductors......              54,598.3
Newport Fab DBA TowerJazz...  Semiconductors......               9,190.9
NXP Semiconductor...........  Semiconductors......              56,910.6
Polar Semiconductor.........  Semiconductors......              13,192.0
Qorvo Texas.................  Semiconductors......               9,706.4
Samsung Austin Semiconductor  Semiconductors......             260,269.0
Semiconductor Components      Semiconductors......              11,502.5
 Industries DBA ON
 Semiconductor.
Texas Instruments...........  Semiconductors......              73,345.6
Tower Semiconductor San       Semiconductors......               9,836.6
 Antonio.
WaferTech...................  Semiconductors......              21,733.9
X-FAB Texas.................  Semiconductors......               1,757.7
U.S. Department of Defense..  Mission-critical               2,300,000.0
                               Military.
Raytheon Technologies.......  Onboard Aerospace                 44,105.4
                               Fire Suppression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

    EPA has codified the procedure for calculating the production
allowance allocation in 40 CFR 84.9. EPA has allocated calendar year
2022 production allowances as shown in Table 2.

          Table 2--Production Allowances for Calendar Year 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of
                                                         production
                      Entity                          allowances issued
                                                         (MTEVe) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application-specific allowances \2\...............           5,558,824.3
Set-aside \3\.....................................           2,500,000.0
Arkema............................................          40,555,947.3
Chemours..........................................          75,115,321.8
Honeywell International...........................         170,413,409.6
Iofina Chemical...................................               1,744.9
Mexichem Fluor DBA Koura..........................          50,153,909.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
\2\ See Table 1.
\3\ EPA intends to allocate set-aside allowances by March 31, 2022.

    EPA has codified the procedure for calculating the consumption
allowance allocation in 40 CFR 84.11. EPA has allocated calendar year
2022 consumption allowances as shown in Table 3.

         Table 3--Consumption Allowances for Calendar Year 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of
                                                         consumption
                      Entity                          allowances issued
                                                         (MTEVe) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application-specific allowances \2\...............           5,558,824.3
Set-aside \3\.....................................           7,500,000.0
A-Gas.............................................           3,197,981.6
Advanced Specialty Gases..........................             284,314.2
Air Liquide USA...................................             496,782.6
Altair Partners...................................           2,908,497.9
Arkema............................................          30,966,544.3
Artsen............................................           1,023,968.7
AutoZone Parts....................................           2,477,946.6
AW Product Sales & Marketing......................             193,823.8
Bluon.............................................              33,342.5
Chemours..........................................          33,265,653.1
Combs Gas.........................................           1,283,403.1
ComStar International.............................             372,752.5
Daikin America....................................           3,109,990.8
Electronic Fluorocarbons..........................             103,923.4
First Continental International...................             767,139.1
FluoroFusion Specialty Chemicals..................           2,543,583.9
GlaxoSmithKline...................................             534,487.5
Harp USA..........................................             762,890.0
Honeywell International...........................          82,208,205.2
Hudson Technologies...............................           2,977,582.0
ICool USA.........................................           3,395,051.7
IGas Holdings.....................................          25,853,657.7
Iofina Chemical...................................               1,260.5
Lenz Sales & Distribution.........................           1,106,426.7
Linde.............................................             530,636.4
Mexichem Fluor DBA Koura..........................          25,390,556.9
Mondy Global......................................             317,589.6
National Refrigerants.............................          19,737,372.2
Nature Gas Import and Export......................             816,751.0
Refrigerants, Inc.................................              26,457.8
RMS of Georgia....................................           1,615,592.9
Showa Chemicals of America........................              73,209.0
Solvay Fluorides..................................           1,098,594.2
Technical Chemical................................             970,724.9
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling............                  16.7
Tulstar Products..................................             731,537.3
Walmart...........................................           2,272,587.7
Waysmos USA.......................................             632,280.2
Weitron...........................................           6,316,123.6
Wilhelmsen Ships Service..........................              40,250.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
\2\ See Table 1.
\3\ EPA intends to allocate set-aside allowances by March 31, 2022.

Hans Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-21951 Filed 10-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45529-45534]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18380]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72705; File No. SR-MSRB-2014-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to Rule G-3, on Professional Qualification
Requirements, Regarding Continuing Education Requirements

July 29, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 22, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of proposed amendments to Rule G-3, on professional
qualification requirements (the ``proposed rule change'').\3\ The
effective date of the proposed rule change will be January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Certain portions of Rule G-3, including the title, are the
subject of proposed amendments that are currently pending SEC
approval and will not be effective until 60 days following the date
of such approval. See SEC Release No. 34-72425 (Jun. 18, 2014); 79
FR 35829 (Jun. 24, 2014); File No. SR-MSRB-2014-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2014-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to improve the Firm
Element continuing education requirement of MSRB Rule G-3(h)(ii) by
requiring brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
(collectively, ``dealers'') to conduct annual municipal securities
training for registered representatives who regularly engage in, and
municipal securities principals who regularly supervise, municipal
securities activities. While the MSRB has intended, from the inception
of the rule, that dealers consider the scope of their municipal
securities activities and regulatory developments in preparing their
annual training plan, the rule does not specifically require dealers to
train registered persons on municipal securities issues. The proposed
rule change would require such training for a select group of
registered persons who are regularly engaged in or supervise municipal
securities activities.
Background
    In 1993, a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') task force \4\
was created to study and develop recommendations regarding continuing
education in the securities industry. The task force issued a report
calling for a formal, two-part continuing education program consisting
of: (i) A Regulatory Element requiring securities industry
professionals to obtain periodic and uniform training in regulatory
matters, and (ii) a Firm Element requiring firms to provide ongoing
training to employees to ensure they have up to date knowledge of job
and securities product-related subjects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The task force included representatives from six SROs,
including the MSRB, and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 1995 the SEC approved SRO rule changes based on the
task force's recommendations.\5\ In approving the SRO rule changes, the
SEC stated that these SROs ``may require their members, either
individually or as part of a group, to provide specific training in any
areas the SROs deem necessary.'' \6\ The SEC added that ``[a]s the
program evolves, it is expected that educational standards will be
defined by the SROs for products and services where heightened
regulatory concerns exist.'' \7\ Since approval of the continuing
education rules, SROs have amended their continuing education rules as
industry and market practices evolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SEC Release No. 34-35341 (Feb. 8, 1995), 60 FR 8426
(Feb. 14, 1995), File No. SR-MSRB-94-17 (approving MSRB Rule G-3(h),
on continuing education requirements).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Firm Element Continuing Education Requirement
    Currently, MSRB Rule G-3(h)(ii)(B)(1) requires dealers to maintain
a continuing and current education program for their covered registered
persons to enhance their securities knowledge, skill and
professionalism. Under Rule G-3(h)(ii)(A), covered registered persons
are limited to those registered representatives who have direct contact
with customers in the conduct of a dealer's securities sales, trading
and investment banking

activities, and to their immediate supervisors.
    At least annually, dealers are required to evaluate and prioritize
their training needs (commonly known and referred to herein as a
``needs analysis'') and develop written training plans for their
covered registered persons. The needs analysis should take into
consideration the firm's size, organizational structure, and scope of
business activities, as well as regulatory developments and the
performance of covered registered persons in the Regulatory Element.
    However, while the current rule requires dealers to evaluate their
training needs annually, it does not require dealers to conduct
municipal securities training for their covered registered persons,
regardless of the extent to which they engage in municipal securities
activities. The proposed rule change addresses concerns that municipal
securities professionals may not be receiving adequate training because
dealers may not be placing a sufficiently high priority on municipal
securities in their needs analysis.
    The MSRB understands that this deficiency may be the result of
municipal securities topics competing with training on other products,
and the perception that municipal securities are a relatively safe
investment option in comparison to other investment products. However,
despite competition for dealer training resources and the possible
perception that municipal securities are low risk products, the MSRB
believes that the municipal securities market possesses unique
attributes that require particularized education and training. In
addition, dealers engaging in municipal securities activities are
subject to, and as a result, must be familiar with MSRB rules that are
distinct from the rules of other SROs and that are tailored to address
the particularities of the municipal securities market.
    Since Rule G-3(h) does not require any training on municipal
securities, registered persons regularly engaged in municipal
securities activities and supervisors who regularly supervise municipal
securities activities may receive insufficient, or no, training on
municipal securities, particularly if such persons are employed by
firms that offer a broad range of financial products. The MSRB believes
that requiring dealers to conduct annual municipal securities training
for registered persons who are regularly engaged in or who regularly
supervise municipal securities activities would ensure the delivery of
municipal securities content to those individuals who are active in the
municipal securities market, while allowing dealers sufficient
flexibility in delivering such content. Under the proposed rule change,
dealers would continue to determine the nature of the training and
would have the discretion as to content based on the specific type of
municipal securities activities conducted by the firm and the
individual registered person.
    In addition to mandating annual training, the proposed rule change
would also expand the definition of covered registered persons who are
required to participate in such training to include registered persons
who engage in a variety of municipal securities activities, regardless
of whether such activities are customer-facing. Currently, only
registered representatives who have direct contact with customers in
securities sales, trading and investment banking activities and their
immediate supervisors are required to participate in Firm Element
continuing education.
Request for Comment on Proposed Changes to the Firm Element Requirement
    On December 13, 2013, the MSRB published a request for public
comment on a draft of the proposed rule change.\8\ In response, the
MSRB received eleven comment letters.\9\ In formulating the proposed
rule change, the Board reviewed all comments submitted in connection
with the proposal and considered the suggestions and issues they
raised. The MSRB also considered the alternatives suggested by
commenters and amended the proposed rule change in response to the
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MSRB Notice 2013-22 (Dec. 13, 2013) (``December
Notice'').
    \9\ Letters were received from Bond Dealers of America
(``BDA''), Diamant Investment Corporation (``Diamant''), Financial
Services Institute (``FSI''), Investment Company Institute
(``ICI''), MetLife Securities, Inc. (``MetLife''), National Society
of Compliance Professionals (``NSCP''), Romano Wealth Management
(``Romano''), RW Smith & Associates, Inc. (``RW Smith''), Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), Securities
Industry Council on Continuing Education (``SICCE''), and Wulff,
Hansen & Co (``Wulff''). The comment letters are discussed in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a number of commenters objected to the initial
proposal to extend the Firm Element training to all persons associated
with dealers who primarily engage in municipal securities activities.
In response to the comments, as more fully discussed below, the MSRB
modified the proposal to require only registered persons who are
regularly engaged in municipal securities activities and supervisors
who regularly supervise municipal securities activities to participate
in the training.
Training of Registered Persons Who are Not Customer-Facing
    Several commenters expressed concerns about requiring registered
persons who are not customer-facing but perform middle or back-office
functions to participate in continuing education. In this regard, the
proposed rule change sets no new precedent. Both the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') and the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') require certain registered personnel who are not customer-
facing to fulfill continuing education requirements.\10\ In approving
FINRA's operations professional classification, the SEC stated,
``[g]iven the growing complexity of the industry, and the importance of
the services provided by the back-office personnel, the Commission
believes that FINRA's proposal to . . . require members to provide
Operations Professionals with continuing education . . . will help to
address regulatory gaps in this area.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA Rule 1250(a)(5) requires operation professionals
(Series 99) to complete continuing education, and CBOE Rule 9.3A(c)
requires proprietary traders (Series 56) to complete continuing
education requirements.
    \11\ SEC Release No. 34-64687 (Jun. 16, 2011), 76 FR 36586 (Jun.
22, 2011), File No. SR-FINRA-2011-013. Similarly, regarding CBOE's
Proprietary Trader exam (Series 56), the Commission stated, ``Though
proprietary traders with a Series 56 registration do not interact
with the public, the Exchange believes this requirement is
appropriate as it ensures these registered persons continue to
enhance their securities knowledge, skill and professionalism. . . .
Thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate that these individuals
also complete the Firm Element.'' SEC Release No. 34-70027 (Jul. 23,
2013), 78 FR 45584 (Jul. 29, 2013), File No. SR-CBOE-2013-076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring training for registered representatives and principals
who regularly engage in or supervise municipal securities activities
will provide reasonable assurance that individuals performing important
functions in a dealer's middle and back-office understand their
professional responsibilities and applicable regulations, as well as
the importance of identifying and escalating indications of possible
wrongdoing. As a baseline, dealers that are FINRA members must deliver
Firm Element training to certain customer-facing and back-office
registered persons. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change
would result in training that would be appropriately targeted to
registered representatives who regularly engage in municipal securities
activities, such as sales, trading, investment banking, and processing
and clearance of municipal securities transactions, as well as those

principals who regularly supervise such activity. Furthermore, the MSRB
believes that the proposed rule change would not pose an undue burden
on dealers because most registered persons already participate in some
form of Firm Element training.
Flexibility To Determine Who is Regularly Engaged in Municipal
Securities Activities
    Under the proposed rule change, not all registered persons would be
required to participate in a dealer's Firm Element training. Rather,
dealers would be required to train only those registered persons
engaged in or supervising municipal securities activities on a regular
basis. Dealers would determine which of their registered persons
regularly engage in or supervise municipal securities activities, and
they would not be required to provide Firm Element continuing education
for those individuals who engage in municipal securities activities on
an infrequent or de minimis basis.
    Dealers would be required, under Rule G-3(h)(ii)(B)(1), to
document, in writing, their method for determining whether an
individual, or class of individuals, regularly engages in or regularly
supervises municipal securities activities as part of their needs
analysis. Dealers would have the flexibility to determine who
participates in such training, so long as they have a reasonable basis
for determining which registered persons regularly engage in or
supervise municipal securities activities.
    A dealer could, for example, determine that registered
representatives are ``regularly engaged in municipal securities
activities'' if such individuals are engaged in sales of municipal
securities to customers and derived more than a certain percent of
their gross sales in the preceding year from municipal securities
transactions. Or, dealers might determine that registered
representatives who participate in a threshold level of municipal
securities trades, or are part of a particular group within the firm
(e.g., a dealer's public finance group) are regularly engaged in
municipal securities activities.
Flexibility Regarding Training Content
    As is currently the case, dealers also would have the flexibility
to determine the content of the training. While some dealers may elect
to develop original content, others may utilize existing content
available in the marketplace. Dealers would be able to access and
include MSRB webinars as part of the training. Conferences and other
municipal securities training offered by trade associations and other
market participants could also be utilized. Given the variety of
sources for municipal securities training content, the MSRB believes
the proposed rule change would impose little additional burden on
dealers.
Technical Amendments
    Finally, the proposed rule change includes certain technical
amendments to conform other portions of Rule G-3 to the proposed rule
change. First, the proposed rule change would amend Rule G-3(h)(ii)(C)
to clarify that covered registered persons must participate in the Firm
Element training as required by the dealer.\12\ Second, Rule G-
3(h)(ii)(B)(1) would be amended to clarify that, under the proposed
rule change, supervisory training would be required for any registered
principal who regularly supervises municipal securities activities.\13\
Third, Rule G-3(h)(ii)(B)(2) would be amended to explicitly require
that a firm's training program include training on the municipal
securities products, services and strategies offered by the dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule G-3(h)(ii)(C) currently states: ``Participation in the
Firm Element--Covered registered persons included in a broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer's plan must [take all
appropriate and reasonable steps to] participate in continuing
education.'' (emphasis added) Proposed revised Rule G-3(h)(ii)(C)
would remove the text in brackets to ensure all covered registered
persons participate in Firm Element continuing education annually.
    \13\ Rule G-3(h)(ii)(B)(1) currently states ``If a broker,
dealer or municipal securities dealer's analysis determines a need
for supervisory training for persons with supervisory
responsibility, such training must be included in the broker, dealer
or municipal securities dealer's training plan.'' The MSRB proposes
to eliminate this provision because, under the proposed rule change,
registered principals who regularly supervise municipal securities
activity would be required to participate in Firm Element training
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date
    The MSRB is proposing January 1, 2015 as the effective date for the
proposed rule change to provide dealers with adequate time to include
the training requirements of the proposed rule change into their annual
needs analysis and written training plan developed after such date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\14\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).

provide that no municipal securities broker or municipal securities
dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to
induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security, and no
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor
shall provide advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, unless . . . such municipal
securities broker or municipal securities dealer and every natural
person associated with such municipal securities broker or municipal
securities dealer meet such standards of training, experience,
competence, and such other qualifications as the Board finds
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protection of investors and municipal entities or obligated persons.

    Additionally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\15\ which provides
that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Requiring Firm Element continuing education for registered persons
who regularly engage in municipal securities activities and supervisors
who regularly supervise municipal securities activities is essential
for the protection of investors, municipal entities and the public
interest because such education will help ensure that individuals
regularly participating in the municipal securities market will stay
abreast of new municipal securities features, products and risks;
changes to applicable regulatory regimes; and innovations in market
practices. As SIFMA noted in a recent comment letter to the MSRB
regarding a rule proposal on professional qualifications for municipal
advisors, ``[c]ontinuing education and day to day training are critical
parts of the core training of a firm's employees. Regulations change
frequently, and firms need to ensure their associated persons are
appropriately informed about such changes.'' \16\ The MSRB agrees with
SIFMA's assertion that continuing education is necessary to remain
current on regulatory developments and believes the proposed rule
change will accomplish that objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SIFMA Letter dated May 16, 2014 in response to MSRB
Notice 2014-08 (Mar. 17, 2014).

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

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to
all dealers who engage in municipal securities activities. The proposed
rule change does nothing more than specify that, in developing an
annual training plan based on the firm's needs analysis, the dealer
must include municipal securities training for those registered
individuals who are regularly engaged in municipal securities
activities and supervisors who regularly supervise municipal securities
activities. The proposed rule change does not set forth any
quantitative or qualitative requirements regarding the training that
must be provided. Rather, it continues to grant dealers flexibility to
develop Firm Element training based on the nature of their business
activities. Several commenters indicated that the proposed rule change
would likely improve the municipal securities market and its efficient
operation, and that potential burdens created by the proposed rule
change are to be likely outweighed by the benefits.
    The Board has historically given careful consideration to the costs
and benefits of its new and amended rules. The Board recently adopted a
policy to more formally integrate economic analysis into its rulemaking
process. According to the policy, the Board should, prior to proceeding
with a rulemaking, evaluate the need for the rule and determine whether
the rule as drafted will, in its judgment, meet that need. The Board
also should identify, prior to proceeding with a rulemaking, data and
other information it would need in order to make an informed judgment
about the potential economic consequences of the rule. In addition, the
Board should make a preliminary identification of both relevant
baselines and reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule. Finally,
the Board should consider the potential benefits and costs of the
proposed rule and the reasonable alternative regulatory approaches.
The Need for the Proposed Rule Change
    The need for the proposed rule change arises from concerns that
municipal securities professionals may not be receiving adequate
training on municipal securities. The structure of the current rule
allows for dealers to evaluate and prioritize their firm-level training
needs, at least annually, through a needs analysis. The current rule
does not require dealers to conduct municipal securities training for
their covered registered persons, regardless of the extent to which
they engage in municipal securities activities. Absent a requirement,
some dealers may not be placing a sufficiently high priority on
municipal securities in their needs analysis, particularly when
municipal securities topics are competing with training on other
topics. This situation may arise, for example, in firms with a broad
scope of business activities with only a small subset of employees
engaged on a regular basis with municipal securities activities. In
evaluating training needs at these firms, municipal securities training
can become a low priority at the firm level even though such training
is important to the subset of employees who are registered individuals
regularly engaged in municipal securities activities. The proposed rule
change addresses the need to ensure adequate training for municipal
securities professionals by requiring focused training for registered
representatives who engage regularly in municipal securities
activities.
Relevant Baselines
    To evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rule change, a
baseline, or baselines, must be established as a point of reference.
The analysis proceeds by comparing the expected state after the
proposed rule change is approved to the baseline state prior to the
rule taking effect. The economic impact of the proposed rule change is
measured as the difference between these two states.
    One baseline that can be used to evaluate the impact of the
proposed rule change is the current structure of Rule G-3 which
requires Firm Element education programs for a firm's covered
registered persons, i.e., those who are registered representatives who
have direct contact with customers in the conduct of a dealer's
securities sales, trading and investment banking activity, and their
immediate supervisors.
    For the subset of municipal securities professionals who are
associated persons of FINRA members, a baseline to evaluate the impact
of the proposed rule change is the current FINRA requirements for Firm
Element training applied to certain customer-facing and back-office
registered persons.
Identifying and Evaluating Reasonable Alternative Regulatory Approaches
    One alternative to adopting the proposed rule change would be for
the MSRB not to engage in additional rulemaking, and thus, not require
dealers to conduct municipal securities training for their covered
registered persons, regardless of the extent to which they are engaged
in municipal securities activities. In the absence of such a
requirement, dealers would evaluate and prioritize their training needs
which may not include training regarding municipal securities even if
registered representatives and principals are regularly engaged in or
supervise such activities.
    Various alternatives were suggested by commenters and have been
addressed herein. Some of the suggested alternative regulatory
approaches have been incorporated into the proposed rule change. For
example, a number of commenters raised concerns with the initial
proposal to extend the Firm Element training to all persons associated
with dealers who primarily engage in municipal securities activities.
In response to the comments, the MSRB modified the proposal to require
only registered persons regularly engaged in municipal securities
activities and supervisors who regularly supervise municipal securities
activities to participate in the training.
    Another alternative suggested by commenters was to eliminate a
proposed one-hour continuing education requirement. After carefully
considering the views of the commenters, the MSRB has eliminated the
one-hour requirement in the proposed rule change.
Assessing the Benefits and Costs
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance the municipal
securities knowledge of those registered individuals who regularly
engage in or regularly supervise municipal securities activities.
Relative to the baseline of existing Rule G-3, the proposed rule change
would require dealers to conduct municipal securities training annually
for their registered representatives and principals who are regularly
engaged in, or supervise, such activities.
    At the outset, the MSRB notes it is currently unable to quantify
the economic effects of the proposed rule change because the
information necessary to provide reasonable estimates is not available.
    The likely benefit of the proposed rule change is that it will
ensure that registered individuals who are regularly engaged in or
regularly supervise municipal securities activities will receive
training on municipal securities topics for the purpose of keeping them
up to date, and to enhance their knowledge, skill and professionalism.
Because the municipal securities market is complex and has unique
institutional features, it is important for these individuals that some
portion of their

required annual training include topics specific to municipal
securities.
    The proposed rule change includes training for individuals
performing important functions pertaining to municipal securities
transactions in a dealer's middle or back-office. The benefit of
requiring training for these individuals is that the training will
provide reasonable assurance that these individuals will understand
their professional responsibilities and applicable regulations, as well
as the importance of identifying and escalating matters that may
indicate possible violations of MSRB rules or the federal securities
laws.
    Relative to the baseline of existing Rule G-3, the likely benefit
of the proposed rule change will accrue primarily to municipal
securities professionals employed by firms engaged in many activities,
where municipal securities activities are only a portion of the
business. Individuals in such firms may not be receiving training on
municipal securities because the Firm Element needs analysis, when
evaluated across a broad scope of a firm's activities, may result in
training for other areas that are deemed a higher priority. For firms
specializing in municipal securities activities, the proposed rule
change will likely produce no additional benefit, except for training
of registered back-office personnel, since the Firm Element needs
analysis performed by these firms under existing Rule G-3 will likely
result in specialized training on municipal securities topics.
    Relative to the baseline of existing Rule G-3, the proposed rule
change would likely produce additional compliance costs for certain
firms, primarily for firms engaged in many activities where municipal
securities activities are only a portion of the business. These firms
would incur costs associated with determining and documenting which of
their covered employees are regularly engaged in, or regularly
supervise municipal securities activities. To address this cost, the
proposed rule change allows dealers flexibility in determining which
individual employees meet the criteria of regularly engaging in or
supervising these activities.
    It also would be expected that firms will incur costs in developing
instructional materials specifically addressing topics related to
municipal securities. Many of the comment letters addressed concerns
about the cost of producing these instructional materials. However,
there are less costly alternatives to developing original instructional
materials. The training requirement can be satisfied by attending
professional conferences or webinars addressing topics related to
municipal securities. Some of these webinars are available without
charge and may be able to satisfy all or a portion of a dealer's
training needs.

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

    In response to the December Notice, the MSRB received eleven
comment letters. BDA and FSI expressed support for requiring municipal
securities training as part of the Firm Element training. BDA commented
that requiring training of registered representatives regularly engaged
in municipal securities activities ``would also help keep these
professionals abreast of emerging regulatory developments and industry
trends, without having to include additional municipal securities
content on such general securities qualification examinations or impose
a specific examination requirements [sic] for registered
representatives engaged in municipal securities activities.'' FSI
stated that it believed the proposed rule change would effectively
target registered representatives regularly engaged in municipal
securities activities without ``imposing additional continuing
education requirements on associated persons of a broker-dealer firms
[sic] for whom this additional training would be unnecessary.'' FSI
further commented that the proposal ``provides a measured and balanced
approach to achieving MSRB's goals to increase municipal securities
training while ensuring that unnecessary additional regulatory
requirements are avoided.''
One-Hour Training Requirement
    Some commenters objected to the proposed one-hour continuing
education requirement included in the draft rule language proposed in
the December Notice, arguing that it improperly focused on the
quantitative aspect of training instead of the qualitative nature of
the training. Several commenters believed that the one-hour requirement
was too subjective and did not adequately consider the quality of the
training being delivered. According to SIFMA, ``[f]ocusing on the
quantity (i.e., time element) versus the quality of the training
provided is misguided.'' Wulff expressed a similar sentiment, stating
``[t]he specified one-hour minimum will also complicate the process of
identifying and proving a violation of the rule by firms whose programs
are deemed inadequate by their examiners but meet the quantitative
minimum set forth in the rule.'' NSCP noted that ``[c]urrently, there
are no prescriptive rules that we are aware of that mandate specific
time on any aspect of securities industry CE training.'' NSCP added
that ``mandating prescriptive minimum hourly training requirements is
inconsistent with the industry-wide goal of designing CE training
appropriately addressing each firm's needs, based upon a self-managed
analysis.''
    After carefully considering the views of the commenters and the
objectives of the proposed rule change, the MSRB eliminated the one-
hour requirement in the proposed rule change. One of the core
objectives of the proposed rule change is to ensure that registered
individuals regularly engaged in municipal securities activities take
part in municipal securities continuing education. The MSRB believes
that the proposed rule change can achieve the objective of enhancing an
individual's municipal securities knowledge without setting time
parameters for the training.
Persons Covered by the Training Requirement
    Some commenters expressed concern over the MSRB's inclusion of the
phrase ``primarily engaged in municipal securities activities'' and the
use of the term ``associated person'' in the December Notice. These
commenters believed that the phrase ``primarily engaged'' did not
provide dealers with enough guidance to determine who at their firm
would meet such a standard. Furthermore, these commenters stated that
they would have difficulty determining which persons at their firm
would now be considered an ``associated person.'' ICI commented that
``[i]dentifying which of its associated persons are `primarily engaged
in municipal securities activities' may be a relatively easy exercise
for municipal securities dealers whose primary business consists of the
offer and sale of municipal securities other than municipal fund
securities. In the case of our members and other dealers whose
municipal securities activities are limited to the offer and sale of
municipal fund securities, such as 529 plan securities, this will be an
incredibly difficult exercise.'' Additionally, commenters raised
concerns over expanding the continuing education requirement to
unregistered associated persons, suggesting it was a departure from the
current regulatory standards set by other regulators. NSCP noted that,
``this new requirement [requiring non-registered personnel to complete
continuing education training]

represents a departure from current industry-wide requirements, e.g.,
FINRA Rule 1250 prescribes requirements for registered persons only.''
    While the December Notice proposed a training requirement beyond
registered representatives, it simultaneously narrowed the category of
covered persons to those primarily engaged in municipal securities
activities. The Board's rationale for initially proposing to expand the
training requirement to unregistered persons who engage in municipal
securities activities in a dealer's middle or back-office was to
address cases where such individuals may not have been receiving
continuing education, and yet were charged with adhering to
requirements prescribed by the MSRB's uniform practice rules.
Nevertheless, after considering the concerns of commenters and the
potential impact of expanding the coverage of the training requirement,
the Board decided that its objective of ensuring proper levels of
continuing education for those individuals regularly participating in
the municipal securities market could be accomplished by requiring
training for registered representatives and principals who regularly
engage in or supervise municipal securities activities. The MSRB
believes that training registered persons who regularly supervise
municipal securities activities will improve their ability to supervise
registered and non-registered persons who engage in activities covered
by MSRB rules.
Additional Compliance Burden and Duplicative Requirements
    Several commenters stated that the proposed rule change would be
duplicative and impose additional and unjustified compliance burdens.
BDA commented that ``with any new or enhanced regulatory requirement,
there are associated compliance costs borne by the staff at our member
firms.'' NSCP raised concerns about compliance professionals becoming
``bogged down by administrative functions associated with such a
prescriptive rule.'' Similarly, Diamant commented that ``. . .forcing
additional education requirements simply places another layer of
regulatory burden on top of the existing education requirement.'' The
MSRB maintains that the Firm Element requirement is not a new
requirement as described by commenters. Dealers have been delivering
continuing education that may have included municipal securities
content since the continuing education rules were first established in
1995. The proposed rule change would simply add the requirement that
some training on municipal securities be provided to select registered
persons. The MSRB concedes that this change may require some dealers to
devote resources to evaluating their training programs and including
content on municipal securities activities for registered
representatives and principals that regularly engage in or supervise
municipal securities activities.
    Dealers, however, will have the ability to create and deliver
content in the most convenient and effective manner based on their own
business model. To the extent technology is available and affordable it
may be used to assist dealers in delivering content to their employees,
thereby mitigating the impact of the proposed rule change. The MSRB
understands that many dealers already provide substantial training for
their employees, and that many firms do not limit the training to their
customer-facing registered representatives. The goal of the proposed
rule change is to ensure that all dealers provide at least some
municipal securities training for those registered persons who
regularly engage in municipal securities activities and to those
registered persons who regularly supervise such activity. The Board
believes this approach is consistent with the investors' expectation of
financial professionals and the firms with which they do business.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-MSRB-2014-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2014-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2014-05 and should be
submitted on or before August 26, 2014.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18380 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50339-50342]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280; FRL-9947-70-Region 9]

Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to Regulation 2,
Rules 1 and 2 for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD
or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on April 22, 2013. These revisions consist of significant
updates to rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary
sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major
modifications under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Under the authority of the CAA, this action simultaneously
approves a local rule that regulates permit requirements for stationary
sources and directs the BAAQMD to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: These rules will be effective on August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, (415)
947-4156<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The word or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ATC mean or refer to the authority to construct
permit.
    (iii) The word or initials BAAQMD or District mean or refer to the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
    (iv) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.
    (v) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vi) The initials ERCs mean or refer to Emission Reduction Credits.
    (vii) The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager.
    (viii) The initials FR mean or refer to Federal Register.
    (ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (x) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
    (xi) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xii) The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit.
    (xiii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xiv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    (xv) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support
document for the proposed action.

I. Proposed Action

    On August 28, 2015, the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the rules listed in Table 1 that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP. 80 FR 52236 (Aug. 28, 2015). Our
detailed analysis of these rules is provided in the TSD and Federal
Register notice for the proposed rulemaking for this SIP revision
approval action.

                                          Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
           Regulation & rule No.                          Rule title                  amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation 2, Rule 1 (2-1).................  Permits, General Requirements......        12/19/12         4/22/13
Regulation 2, Rule 2 (2-2).................  Permits, New Source Review.........        12/19/12         4/22/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these
rules strengthen the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant
CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval
because some rule provisions conflict with CAA section 110, including
Parts C and D, and the regulations implementing those laws. The
disapproved provisions include the following:
    1. The definitions of ``agricultural source'' in Section 2-1-239
and ``large confined animal facility'' used in Section 2-1-424 rely on
other definitions and provisions in District rules that are not SIP
approved. (See our evaluation of Sections 2-1-239 and 2-1-424 in
section 6.1.2 of the TSD.)
    2. Section 2-1-234, subparagraph 2.2, is deficient because it does
not satisfy the PSD provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) and 51.166(r)(6)
& (7), which require PSD programs to contain specific applicability
procedures and recordkeeping provisions. (See our evaluation of Section
2-1-234 in sections 6.1.2 and 7.2.2 of the TSD.)
    3. The same deficiency discussed above for the PSD provisions
applies to the nonattainment NSR provisions. Section 2-1-234,
subparagraph 2.1, does not satisfy the requirements of 51.165(a)(2) and
51.165(a)(6) & (7), which require nonattainment NSR programs to contain
specific applicability procedures and recordkeeping provisions. (See
our evaluation of Section 2-1-234 in sections 6.1.2 and 7.3.12 of the
TSD.)
    4. The definition of the term ``PSD pollutant'' as defined in
Section 2-2-223, which is used in place of the federal definition for
the term ``regulated NSR pollutant,'' is deficient

because it explicitly excludes nonattainment pollutants. (See our
evaluation of Sections 2-2-223 and 2-2-224 in sections 6.2.2 and 7.2.3
of the TSD.)
    5. Section 2-2-305 does not require written approval of the
Administrator prior to using any modified or substituted air quality
model as provided in subsection 3.2.2 of 40 CFR 51, appendix W. (See
our evaluation of Section 2-2-305 in sections 6.2.3 and 7.2.15 of the
TSD.)
    6. Section 2-2-611 does not include the requirement regarding ``any
other stationary source category which as of August 7, 1980, is being
regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act'' in the list of source
categories that must include fugitive emissions to determine whether a
source is a major facility. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-611 in
sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.10 of the TSD.)
    7. Section 2-2-401.4 only requires a visibility analysis for
sources that are located within 100 km of a Class I area, rather than
for any source that ``may have an impact on visibility'' in any
mandatory Class I Federal Area, as required by 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2).
(See our evaluation of Section 2-2-401.4 in sections 6.2.4 and 7.3.9 of
the TSD.)
    8. Section 2-2-411 pertaining to Offset Refunds does not contain
any timeframe for obtaining an offset refund. (See our evaluation of
Section 2-2-411 in section 6.2.4 of the TSD.)
    9. The Offset Program Equivalence demonstration required by Section
2-2-412 does not provide a remedy if the District fails to make the
required demonstration. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-412 in
section 6.2.4 of the TSD.)
    10. Subsection 2-2-605.2 allows existing ``fully-offset'' sources
to generate ERCs based on the difference between the post-modification
PTE and the pre-modification PTE. Emission reductions intended to be
used as offsets for new major sources or major modifications are only
creditable if they are reductions of actual emissions, not reductions
in the PTE of a source. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-605 in
sections 6.2.6, 7.3.3, 7.3.13, and 7.3.22 of the TSD.)
    11. Subsection 2-2-606.2, as it applies to major modifications,
does not require ``fully-offset'' sources to calculate the emission
increases from a proposed major modification based on the difference
between the post-modification PTE and the pre-modification actual
emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J). (See our
evaluation of Section 2-2-606 in sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.22 of the TSD.)
    In addition, we had proposed a limited disapproval of Section 2-2-
308. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-308 in sections 6.2.3 and 7.4.1
of the TSD.) We also proposed to find the rules were deficient because
they did not require a demonstration that a new source meet all
applicable SIP requirements as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). (See
section 7.4.1 in the TSD.) For the reasons discussed in sections 2.2
and 2.3 of our Response to Comments document, we are not finalizing our
proposed disapproval of Section 2-2-308 or the proposed deficiency
based on the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1).

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Our August 28, 2015 proposed rulemaking provided a 30-day public
comment period. The EPA granted a request from BAAQMD to extend the
public comment period until November 12, 2015, which is the date the
public comment period ended. We received comments from BAAQMD and the
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB).\1\
We also received a comment letter from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD) after the public comment period
ended. We received an anonymous, non-substantive comment letter and a
comment letter submitted on behalf of the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) that was withdrawn during the
comment period. Our Response to Comments document in the docket for
this action contains a summary of the comments and the EPA's responses.
The full text of the public comments, as well as all other documents
relevant to this action, are available in the docket (visit http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280).
Below, we briefly summarize the significant comments and our responses
to the major issues raised by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Each of the comments contained in CCEEB's comment letter
mirrored issues raised in the BAAQMD comment letter, therefore the
comment summary provided in this notice does not attribute specific
comments to CCEEB. Please see the Response to Comments documents for
more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: BAAQMD commented that the CAA is designed to achieve
``cooperative federalism'', and that the EPA should defer to the
District's policy choices on how to implement its NSR program.
    Response 1: The EPA understands its role under the cooperative
federalism approach established under the CAA and we have applied the
appropriate standard in reviewing the BAAQMD's NSR rules.
    Comment 2: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's limited disapproval of
Section 2-2-308 as it relates to satisfying the requirements in 40 CFR
51.160(b).
    Response 2: We are not finalizing our limited disapproval of
Section 2-2-308 as it relates to 40 CFR 51.160(b)(2) for the reasons
discussed in our Response to Comments document. Accordingly, the EPA is
finalizing approval of Section 2-2-308.
    Comment 3: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's limited disapproval of
the District NSR rules because it did not contain a prohibition on the
issuance of an ATC if the project does not meet all applicable
requirements of the control strategy as required in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1). BAAQMD commented that Sections 2-1-304 and 2-1-321
satisfy this requirement.
    Response 3: The EPA is not finalizing our proposed limited
disapproval of this issue because Section 2-1-304 satisfies the control
strategy requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). The EPA is finalizing
approval of Section 2-1-304 as satisfying requirement in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1).
    Comment 4: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's proposed limited
disapproval of Section 2-2-602.2 for determining the amount of offsets
required for major modifications that will be constructed at major
sources that have previously provided offsets equal to the source's PTE
when the modification will not increase the PTE of the source.
    Response 4: The EPA is finalizing our limited disapproval regarding
this issue. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to include rules to
ensure that the total tonnage of increased emissions, in tons per year,
resulting from a major modification that must be offset in accordance
with section 173 of the Act shall be determined by summing the
difference between the allowable emissions after the modification and
the actual emissions before the modification. This provision requires
providing offsets for each major modification at a major source in an
amount equal to the difference between pre-modification actual
emissions and post-modification PTE.
    Comment 5: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's proposed limited
disapproval of the PTE-to-PTE calculation method for determining the
amount of ERCs generated from sources that have provided offsets up to
their full PTE and that are being shut down.
    Response 5: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because offsets are required to be generated from reductions in
actual

emissions consistent with CAA section 173(a) and (c) and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3).
    Comment 6: BAAQMD comments that the EPA cannot require
nonattainment offsets for SO2 because the San Francisco Bay
Area is not designated as nonattainment for SO2.
    Response 6: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) specifies that sulfur dioxide
is a precursor in all PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the
BAAQMD is designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    Comment 7: BAAQMD comments that the EPA's visibility regulations at
40 CFR 51.307(b) do not specify what projects ``may have an impact'' on
visibility at Federal Class I areas, therefore it is acceptable to use
a 100-km radius to meet the requirement.
    Response 7: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because the EPA's visibility regulations require a new major
source or major modification that ``may have an impact on visibility''
at a Federal mandatory Class I area to conduct a visibility analysis on
a case-by-case basis in consultation with the applicable FLM.
    Comment 8: BAAQMD requests that the EPA confirm that the limited
approval and limited disapproval action will make the BAAQMD's NSR
rules as a whole part of the California SIP and federally enforceable
under the CAA.
    Response 8: Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become the federally
enforceable NSR program in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an obligation
to correct rule deficiencies listed in Section I of this Federal
Register document.

III. EPA Action

    For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and above in response
to comments, pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA is
finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted
BAAQMD rules, listed in Table 1 above, into the California SIP.
Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become the federally enforceable NSR
program in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an obligation to correct the
rule deficiencies listed in Section I of this Federal Register
document. We are finalizing a limited approval because incorporating
the BAAQMD permitting rules will strengthen and update the BAAQMD
portion of the California SIP. We are finalizing our limited
disapproval because some of the BAAQMD permitting rules do not comply
with federal NSR requirements.
    We are finalizing our action as proposed, except for the limited
disapprovals regarding Sections 2-2-308 and the requirements of 40 CFR
51.160(a) and (b). Accordingly, the EPA will finalize approval of these
provisions.
    Our limited disapproval action will trigger an obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan under CAA section
110(c) unless California corrects the deficiencies that are the bases
for the limited disapproval, and the EPA approves the related rule
revisions, within 24 months of the effective date of this final action.
In addition, sanctions will be imposed unless the EPA approves
subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18
months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be
imposed under section 179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.
    The District has been implementing the federal PSD permitting
program based on a delegation agreement with the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21(u).\2\ Despite limited deficiencies, this final action approving
the District's PSD permitting program into the SIP means that the
District will be the PSD permitting authority on the effective date of
this final action. Concurrent with the EPA's approval of the District's
rules, all PSD permits for sources located in the BAAQMD issued
directly by the EPA or under the PSD delegation agreement are being
transferred to the District. A list of these EPA-issued permits is
included in the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On June 21, 2004, the EPA issued a PSD delegation agreement,
which was updated on January 20, 2006, February 4, 2008, and March
9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation
by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference of the BAAQMD rules described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate
EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 3, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(B)(7) and
(c)(199)(i)(A)(9) and (c)(202)(i)(A)(2) and (c)(429)(i)(E)(1) and (2)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (7) Previously approved on January 26, 1999 in paragraph
(c)(182)(i)(B)(6) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on November 1, 1989.
* * * * *
    (199) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (9) Previously approved on January 26, 1999 in paragraph
(c)(199)(i)(A)(8) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), Regulation 2, Rule 2 adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
    (202) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on April 3, 1995 in paragraph
(c)(202)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Rule 2-1-249, adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
    (429) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Regulation 2, ``Permits,'' Rule 1, ``General Requirements,''
adopted on December 19, 2012.
    (2) Regulation 2, ``Permits,'' Rule 2, ``New Source Review,''
adopted on December 19, 2012.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.270  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) The PSD program for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.
52.220(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), is approved under part C, subpart 1, of the
Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 to sources located in the BAAQMD, this approval includes
the authority for the BAAQMD to conduct general administration of these
existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent
permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such
permits.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17904 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15359-15360]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

 [Docket No. FMCSA-2003-14794]

Notice of Proposed Revision to Guidance for the Use of Binding
Arbitration Under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Revision to Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: On March 4, 2004, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) published its Guidance for the use of binding
arbitration in Agency civil penalty forfeiture proceedings in which the
only issues remaining to be resolved are the amount of the civil
penalty owed and the length of time in which to pay it. The Guidance
provides that FMCSA use a form of arbitration known as ``Night
Baseball,'' under which each party gives to the Arbitrator its proposal
for the civil penalty in a sealed envelope. After the Arbitrator makes
a written determination as to what he or she believes the civil penalty
should be, the envelopes are opened. The Arbitrator then selects the
proposed civil penalty that is closer to his or her determination.
FMCSA is proposing to revise the Guidance to eliminate the ``Night
Baseball'' format, and to replace it with a format in which the
Arbitrator determines the final civil penalty and the amount of time in
which to pay it.

DATES: You may submit comments in response to this Notice. Send your
comments on or before April 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-
2003-14794 using any one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven B. Farbman, Adjudications
Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Office hours are
from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this Notice of Proposed
Revision to Guidance by submitting comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you
provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposal (FMCSA-2003-14794) and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Notices,'' insert ``FMCSA-2003-14794'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a
Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may alter our proposed course of action based on the
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``read
comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the
``Keyword'' box insert ``FMCSA-2003-14794'' and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in
the ``Title'' column, click on the document you would like to review.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

II. Background

    On March 4, 2004, FMCSA published in the Federal Register (69 FR
10288) its Guidance for the use of binding arbitration as an
alternative dispute resolution technique in Agency civil penalty
forfeiture proceedings in which the only issues remaining to be
resolved are the amount of the civil penalty owed and the length of
time in which to pay it. Under the Guidance's ``Night Baseball''
format, each party presents to the Arbitrator evidence supporting the
penalty it considers appropriate for the case as a whole without
stating what that amount is. Following the hearing, each party provides
the Arbitrator and the opposing party with a sealed envelope containing
the amount of the total proposed civil penalty for the case and, if
necessary, a proposed payment plan. Before opening the envelopes, the
Arbitrator determines in writing the total civil penalty and, if
necessary, a payment plan. The Arbitrator then opens the envelopes and
selects the proposed civil penalty and payment plan that is closer to
his or her determination.
    FMCSA is proposing to eliminate the ``Night Baseball'' format from
the Guidance. Several years of experience with this format have
revealed that final civil penalties are rarely identical to the
Arbitrator's determination, and occasionally not close at all. For
example, in one case, the final civil penalty was $1,001 even though
the Arbitrator determined that the civil penalty should be $2,700. That
is because the $1,001 penalty proposed by the respondent was closer to
the Arbitrator's determination than the claimant's proposal of $4,500.
In

another case, the claimant proposed a $34,090 civil penalty while the
respondent proposed a $6,630 civil penalty. Because the Arbitrator's
decision was $28,000, the higher proposal was chosen. The format has,
in fact, incentivized strategy over substance and merit--the very
result it was designed to avoid. In addition, the ``Night Baseball''
format requires parties to persuade the Arbitrator to accept the wisdom
of their positions without being able to reveal the actual civil
penalty they propose. This is difficult to do, and the process prevents
the Arbitrator from receiving all of the information that might be
helpful in reaching a determination.
    FMCSA believes that the fairest civil penalty will be the amount
determined by the Arbitrator following a full hearing. This will allow
the parties to try to persuade the Arbitrator why a certain proposed
civil penalty will be just. The Arbitrator will then decide, on the
merits, the civil penalty and, if necessary, the amount of time in
which to pay it. The remainder of the 2004 Guidance would continue
unchanged.

    Issued on: March 14, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-6468 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60730]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 7, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 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.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19163 Filed 8-31-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P