[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23369-23371]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0425]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival, Lake St. Clair, New
Baltimore, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 900-foot radius of a portion of Lake St.
Clair, New Baltimore, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators
and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Bay-Rama Fish
Fly Festival Fireworks.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on June 21,
2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0425 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Detroit
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display
in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that
potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on June 21,
2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018 will be a safety concern to
anyone within a 900-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being
displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on June 21, 2018
through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced from
10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on June 21, 2018. In the case of inclement
weather on June 21, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10
p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all
U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI, within a
900-foot radius of position 42[deg]40.600' N, 082[deg]43.990' W (NAD
83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair from 10 p.m. on June
21, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel
16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone that will be enforced for one hour and will prohibit
entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0425 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0425   Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival Fireworks,
Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S.
navigable waters of the Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI, within a
900-foot radius of position 42[deg]40.600' N, 082[deg]43.990' W (NAD
83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 21, 2018. In
the case of inclement weather on June 21, 2018, this safety zone will
be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor
within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the
safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with
all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: May 14, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-10750 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38745-38746]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15366]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69828; File No. SR-ISE-2013-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the Penny Pilot Program

June 21, 2013.
    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 June 13, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its rules relating to a pilot program to
quote and to trade certain options in pennies (``Penny Pilot Program'')
and to revise the provision describing how the Exchange specifies which
option classes trade in the Penny Pilot Program. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.ise.com, at the Exchange'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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Under the Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for all
participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock (``QQQQ''), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and
the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), is $0.01 for all
quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per
contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted
at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot Program is currently
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013.\3\ The Exchange proposes to
extend the time period of the Penny Pilot Program through December 31,
2013, and to provide revised dates for adding replacement issues to the
Penny Pilot Program. The Exchange proposes that any Penny Pilot Program
issues that have been delisted may be replaced on the second trading
day following July 1, 2013. The replacement issues will be selected
based on trading activity for the six month period beginning December
1, 2012, and ending May 31, 2013. This filing does not propose any
substantive changes to the Penny Pilot Program: all classes currently
participating will remain the same and all minimum increments will
remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the benefits to public
customers and other market participants who will be able to express
their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to
outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 68424 (December 13, 2012), 77
FR 75241 (December 19, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed rule change, the Exchange also proposes to
revise the provision describing how the Exchange specifies which option
classes trade in the Penny Pilot Program. Currently, the rule requires
that the Exchange specify which options trade in the Penny Pilot
Program and in what increments in a Regulatory Information Circular
that has been filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Exchange Act and distributed to its Members. The Exchange now
proposes to revise that provision to indicate information regarding the
option classes trading in the Penny Pilot Program will be communicated
to Members through a Market Information Circular. The Exchange will
also post on its Web site the replacement option classes that are
selected for the Penny Pilot Program.\4\ By revising this provision,
the Exchange will eliminate the requirement to file a Regulatory
Information Circular with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This revision is consistent with rules at most of the other
options exchanges participating in the Penny Pilot Program: BATS
Exchange, Inc. Rule 21.5, Interpretations and Policies .01; NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc. Chapter VI, Section 5(3); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Rule
1034(a)(i)(B); The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Chapter VI, Section 5;
NYSE MKT LLC Rule 960NY, Commentary .02; and NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule
6.72, Commentary .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed
rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for an additional
six months, will enable public customers and other market participants
to express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of
all market participants. In addition, the revision to how the Exchange
will specify which options participate in the Penny Pilot Program
promotes just and equitable principles of trade since it clarifies how
Members and other market participants will be made aware of which
option classes are trading in the Penny Pilot Program and eliminates an
unnecessary requirement that the Exchange specify which option classes
are in the Penny Pilot Program through a Regulatory Information
Circular that has been filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4
under the Exchange Act. The requirement to file the Regulatory
Information Circular is

unnecessary because most other options exchanges do not require such a
submission to the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Only BOX Options Exchange LLC (at Rule 7050(b)) requires
that a Regulatory Information Circular specifying which options
trade in the Penny Pilot Program be submitted to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on
competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the
expiration of the Penny Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will
allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot Program and a
determination of how the Penny Pilot Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\10\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program.\12\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44). See
also supra note 3.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-ISE-2013-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-40. 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 Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-40 and should be
submitted on or before July 18, 2013.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15366 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/28/2010 11:10PM -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: "Bromberg, Kevin L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 07/28/2010 04:38PM
cc: "Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Higgins, Cortney"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johnson, Nancy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry
Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter
Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Kymn, Christine J."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

Thanks for the quick reply.

My mistake - I was reading the HAP figure for that one.  And, I've gone back
to the source for the HAP and VOC reductions - and I can verify the 76% and
71% reductions are consistent with the cited data - which I hadn't yet looked
at.

And the CO data is 94%, and that matches too.

So the only missing piece is the Emissions Factors data - which is quite
important.  Look forward to that being provided.

FYI - For HAPs, INGAA suggests an EF of 2.43 E-04 (from AP-42) as more
appropriate for 4SRB, whereas the proposal used 4.78 E-04  (HP<50) or 6.88 E-
04, and the new draft final uses 6.58 E-04.   EPA's EF factor alone makes the
cost/ton  about a factor of two lower.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:21 PM
To: Bromberg, Kevin L.
Cc: Kymn, Christine J.; Higgins, Cortney; Johnson, Nancy;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

Kevin,
Where are you seeing that the CO % reduction for 4SLB should be 71%?  If you
look at the table for 4SLB which is Table 2, see the far right column, the %
reductions for CO are all greater than 90%.  The % reductions for
formaldehyde, which is what we use for HAP and VOC, is provided in each table
(see CH2O).  Table 4 for 4SRB engines does show the NOx % reductions, see the
far right column.  None of the other subcategories has NOx reductions.

The emission factors come from our Emissions Database that was put together
several years ago, plus we supplemented that information with new data where
we could.  We're working on a memo that documents the information.

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                              |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
                                                              |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kymn, Christine J."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johnson, Nancy"                  |
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                               |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |07/28/2010 04:06 PM
                                                              |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |FW: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts
                                                              |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi – Melanie – I’m forwarding this because I think Cortney is jammed.
Not sure if we will get to this tomorrow in preamble questions, because it’s
really about the RIA.  But these are pretty basic, and your contractor could
probably readily answer these.

Kevin

_____________________________________________
From: Bromberg, Kevin L.
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:25 AM
To: 'Higgins, Cortney'; Kymn, Christine J.
Cc: Lee, Amanda I.
Subject: Emission Factors and Percent Reduction by Catalysts

<<EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf>>

Cortney, Christine – I think we should forward this to EPA this AM.  See
below:

This document is cited on page 2 of in the July 26 Cost/Ton memo, as the
source of the control efficiencies represented in Table 2.  The July 26 memo
reports CO emission reductions of 94% and 49% for  4 SLB and 4 SRB
respectively,  and the figures in this document appear to indicate 71% and 49%
 respectively by my inspection.  Although, EPA has properly identified the 49%
reduction, it appears that the 4SLB figure used by EPA is incorrect: it should
be 71% instead of 94% reduction.

More importantly, this document does not provide the percent emission
reductions for HAPs, VOCs, or NOx – where is this document?  Perhaps, EPA
meant to cite a different document in footnote 3 of the July 27th document?

Most importantly, the July 26 memo does not identify the source of the
original emission factors of uncontrolled emissions listed in Table 2,
before adoption of the percent reductions.   What is the source of the
original emission factors?

Without this information, I can’t verify EPA’s emission reductions in two ways
– can’t verify the control efficiencies or the original emission factors –
which can very much modify the cost reasonableness of the GACT analyses.

I thought I should send this in advance of tomorrow’s questions to give you a
heads-up.  If you could answer today, that would be even better.

Thanks
Kevin

Thanks

Kevin(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665[1].pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3828-3829]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66193; File No. SR-ODD-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of Accelerated Delivery of Supplement to the
Options Disclosure Document Reflecting Certain Changes to Disclosure
Regarding Relative Performance Options

January 19, 2012.
    On August 15, 2011, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ five preliminary copies of a supplement to amend the
options disclosure document (``ODD'') to reflect certain changes to
disclosure regarding relative performance options (``January 2012
Supplement'').\2\ On January 5, 2012, the OCC submitted to the
Commission five definitive copies of the January 2012 Supplement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \2\ See letter from Jean M. Cawley, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, OCC, to Sharon
Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets
(``Division''), Commission, dated August 15, 2011.
    \3\ See letter from Jean M. Cawley, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, OCC, to Sharon
Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division, Commission, dated January
5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODD currently contains general disclosures on the
characteristics and risks of trading standardized options. The March
2011 Supplement amended the ODD to provide disclosure regarding
relative performance options in response to the Commission's approval
of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC's (``Phlx'') proposal to list and trade Alpha
Index options.\4\ In August 2011, the Commission approved a proposed
rule change that permitted Phlx to list and trade certain Alpha Index
options where both components of the Alpha Index are ETF shares.\5\ The
current proposed January 2012 Supplement amends the ODD disclosure to
accommodate the listing of relative performance options where both
components of the

underlying relative performance index could be an ETF share. The
supplement also clarifies that the ETF share components must be non-
leveraged. In addition, the supplement proposes to add an example of
the calculation of a relative performance index. The proposed
supplement is intended to be read in conjunction with the more general
ODD, which discusses the characteristics and risks of options
generally.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63860 (February 7,
2011), 76 FR 7888 (February 11, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-176) (order
approving Phlx's proposed rule change to list and trade Alpha Index
options).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65149 (August 17,
2011), 76 FR 52729 (August 23, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-89) (order
approving Phlx's proposed rule change to list and trade Alpha Index
options where both Alpha Index components are ETF shares).
    \6\ The Commission notes that the options markets must continue
to ensure that the ODD is in compliance with the requirements of
Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i),
including when changes regarding relative performance options are
made in the future. Any future changes to the rules of the options
markets concerning relative performance options would need to be
submitted to the Commission under Section 19(b) of the Act. 15
U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act \7\ provides that an options
market must file five copies of an amendment or supplement to the ODD
with the Commission at least 30 days prior to the date definitive
copies are furnished to customers, unless the Commission determines
otherwise, having due regard to the adequacy of the information
disclosed and the public interest and protection of investors.\8\ In
addition, five copies of the definitive ODD, as amended or
supplemented, must be filed with the Commission not later than the date
the amendment or supplement, or the amended ODD, is furnished to
customers. The Commission has reviewed the proposed January 2012
Supplement, and the amendments to the ODD contained therein, and finds
that, having due regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed
and the public interest and protection of investors, the supplement may
be furnished to customers as of the date of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i).
    \8\ This provision permits the Commission to shorten or lengthen
the period of time which must elapse before definitive copies may be
furnished to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act,\9\
that definitive copies of the January 2012 Supplement to the ODD (SR-
ODD-2012-01), reflecting changes to disclosure regarding relative
performance options, may be furnished to customers as of the date of
this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(39).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1445 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P