[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61825]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 16

Chemical Drug Testing

CFR Correction

    In Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 40,
revised as of October 1, 2019, on page 321, in Sec.  16.113, paragraph
(a), second sentence, remove the terms ``documented and licensed'' and
add the term ``credentialed'' in their place.

[FR Doc. 2020-21805 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26525-26527]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0314; FRL-8906-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 27.1--Federal
Requirements for the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District's
Alternative Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program Approved on
September 8, 2000, will allow stationary sources to use emission
reduction credits of nitrogen oxides (NOX) generated from
mobile sources as New Source Review (NSR) offsets. We are approving
Rule 27.1 under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 3, 2009 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 6, 2009. If we receive
such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0314, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., 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 below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of the rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    On August 8, 2008, Rule 27.1 was adopted into SDAPCD's local rules.
On April 29, 2009, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted
the rule to EPA to be included in the SDAPCD portion of the California
SIP.
    On May 7, 2009, the submittal of Rule 27.1 was found to meet the
completeness criteria, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of the submitted rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 27.1 in the California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the rule?

    Rule 27.1--Federal Requirements for the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District's Alternative Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Program Approved On September 8, 2000, along with District
Rule 27--Banking of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, and
SDAPCD's Alternative Program,\1\ provide the framework to ensure that
MERCs created and used under these provisions are real, quantifiable,
surplus and permanent for the life of the project. Rule 27.1 includes
the provisions necessary to ensure that the permanence of the MERCs are
enforceable as a practical and legal matter and Federally enforceable
under the SIP. In addition, since Rule 27.1 does not ensure that MERCs
generated under the District's Alternative Program are real,
quantifiable and surplus, Section (b)(8) of Rule 27.1 requires EPA to
make a finding that the MERCs are real, quantifiable, surplus,
permanent, and enforceable prior to use. Incorporation of Rule 27.1
will allow NOx MERCs generated under the District's program
to be used as Federal NSR offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alternative Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program for
Replacing Medium and Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles and
Repowering of Marine Vessels Under Rule 27(c)(1)(vi) as Approved on
September 8, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
Rule 27.1.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Section 173(c) of the Act requires Federal NSR offsets for new and
modified stationary sources. Emission reductions used as Federal NSR
offsets must be real, quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and
enforceable. Our evaluation of Rule 27.1 is limited to determining
whether MERCs that are tracked through the rule are permanent and
Federally enforceable. Other mechanisms, as discussed in the TSD, have
been used to ensure MERCs subject to this rule are real, quantifiable,
and surplus.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe the rule contains sufficient mechanisms to ensure that
MERCs tracked through the rule are permanent and Federally enforceable.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving Rule 27.1 because we believe it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so
we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously
proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse
comments by July 6, 2009, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval
will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on August 3, 2009. This will incorporate Rule 27.1 into the
Federally enforceable California SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 August 3, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
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)(362)(i)(A)(1) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (362) New and amended regulations were submitted on April 29, 2009
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 27.1, ``Federal Requirements for the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District's Alternative Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Program Approved On September 8, 2000,'' adopted and
effective on August 8, 2008.

[FR Doc. E9-12791 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 18358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08821]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-12, SEC File No. 270-330, OMB Control No. 3235-0372.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-12--Municipal
Securities Disclosure (17 CFR 240.15c2-12) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Paragraph (b) of Rule 15c2-12 requires underwriters of municipal
securities: (1) To obtain and review an official statement ``deemed
final'' by an issuer of the securities, except for the omission of
specified information prior to making a bid, purchase, offer, or sale
of municipal securities; (2) in non-competitively bid offerings, to
send, upon request, a copy of the most recent preliminary official
statement (if one exists) to potential customers; (3) to contract with
the issuer to receive, within a specified time, sufficient copies of
the final official statement to comply with Rule 15c2-12's delivery
requirement and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''); (4) to send, upon request, a copy of the final official
statement to potential customers for a specified period of time; and
(5) before purchasing or selling municipal securities in connection
with an offering, to reasonably determine that the issuer or the
obligated person has undertaken, in a written agreement or contract,
for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to provide
certain information on a continuing basis to the MSRB in an electronic
format as prescribed by the MSRB. The information to be provided
consists of: (1) Certain annual financial and operating information and
audited financial statements (``annual filings''); (2) notices of the
occurrence of any of 14 specific events (``event notices''); and (3)
notices of the failure of an issuer or obligated person to make a
submission required by a continuing disclosure agreement (``failure to
file notices'').
    Rule 15c2-12 is intended to enhance disclosure in the municipal
securities market, and thereby reduce fraud, by establishing standards
for obtaining, reviewing and disseminating information about municipal
securities by their underwriters.
    Municipal offerings of less than $1 million are exempt from the
rule, as are offerings of municipal securities issued in large
denominations that are sold to no more than 35 sophisticated investors
or have short-term maturities.
    It is estimated that approximately 20,000 issuers, 250 broker-
dealers and the MSRB will spend a total of 115,248 hours per year
complying with Rule 15c2-12. Based on data from the MSRB through
September 2014 and annualized through December 2014, issuers will
submit approximately 62,596 annual filings to the MSRB in 2014.
Commission staff estimates that an issuer will require approximately 45
minutes to prepare and submit annual filings to the MSRB. Therefore,
the total annual burden on issuers to prepare and submit 62,596 annual
filings to the MSRB is estimated to be 46,947 hours. Based on data from
the MSRB through September 2014 and annualized through December 2014,
issuers will submit approximately 73,480 event notices to the MSRB in
2014. Commission staff estimates that an issuer will require
approximately 45 minutes to prepare and submit event notices to the
MSRB. Therefore, the total annual burden on issuers to prepare and
submit 73,480 event notices to the MSRB is estimated to be 55,110
hours. Based on data from the MSRB through September 2014 and
annualized through December 2014, issuers will submit approximately
7,063 failure to file notices to the MSRB in 2014. Commission staff
estimates that an issuer will require approximately 30 minutes to
prepare and submit failure to file notices to the MSRB. Therefore, the
total annual burden on issuers to prepare and submit 7,063 failure to
file notices to the MSRB is estimated to be 3,531 hours. Commission
staff estimates that the total annual burden on broker-dealers to
comply with Rule 15c2-12 is 300 hours. Finally, Commission staff
estimates that the MSRB will incur an annual burden of 9,360 hours to
collect, index, store, retrieve and make available the pertinent
documents under Rule 15c2-12.
    Based on data provided by the MSRB, the Commission estimates that
up to 65% of issuers may use designated agents to submit some or all of
their continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB. The Commission
estimates that the average total annual cost that may be incurred by
issuers that use the services of a designated agent will be
$9,750,000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20,000 (number of issuers) x .65 (percentage of issuers that
may use designated agents) x $750 (estimated average annual cost for
issuer's use of designated agent) = $9,750,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08821 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


05/16/07

DRINKING WATER (DW) MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

DRAFT AGENDA

May 23, 2007

The Newport Harbor Hotel and Marina

49 America’s Cup Avenue; Newport, RI  02840

tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.	Registration

9:30 a.m. - 9:40 a.m.	Welcome and Outline of Purpose		Dr. Gary Sayler

					Chair, DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

              9:40 a.m.-9:50 a.m.	DFO Welcome and Charge		Edie Coates (EPA)

	   	- Administrative Procedures/FACA Rules		DFO, DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

		- Objective of Subcommittee/Charge

              9:50 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.    Drinking Water Research Program	 Dr. Audrey Levine (EPA)

	                   Progress Summary		National Program Director for

	                     - Program Overview		Drinking Water

	                     - Relationships with other ORD Research

	                        Programs

	                     - Summary of Research Accomplishments

                                                           - Research collaborations and partnering

             10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.   Discussion and Q&A		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

             10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.   Role of STAR research in the 	 Ms. Angela D. Page (EPA)

		                Drinking Water Research Program		National Center for Environmental

					Research (NCER)

	10:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.	Discussion and Q&A		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	11:00 a.m. - 11:10 am.  Follow-up from 26 April 2007 Teleconference	Dr. Audrey Levine (EPA)

			- Science Leadership		National Program Director for

			- Scientific Quality Measures		Drinking Water

	11:10 a.m. - 11:25 a.m.	Discussion and Q&A		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	11:25 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.	Review Of Program Metrics		Dr. Audrey Levine (EPA)

			- Bibliometric Analysis		National Program Director for

			- Client Document Analysis		Drinking Water

	11:40 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.	Discussion and Q&A		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	12:00 p.m. - 12:45 p.m.  Lunch

	12:45 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.	Subcommittee Working Time		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	2:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.	Public Comments

	2:15 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.	Wrap-up and Report Out		DW Mid-Cycle Subcommittee

	3:00 p.m.		Adjourn

BOSC Drinking Water Mid-Cycle Subcommittee May 23, 2007 Draft Agenda

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78297-78299]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31453]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63491; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-173]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Period of Amendments to the Clearly Erroneous Transactions
Rule

December 9, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 6, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of recent
amendments to Rule 3312, concerning clearly erroneous transactions, so
that the pilot will now expire on April 11, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
at http://www.sec.gov.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is

italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
Rule 3312. Clearly Erroneous Transactions
    The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(C), (b), and (c)(1) of this
Rule, as amended by SR-Phlx-2010-125, shall be in effect during a pilot
period set to end on April 11, 2011[December 10, 2010]. If the pilot is
not either extended or approved permanent by April 11, 2011[December
10, 2010], the prior versions of paragraphs (a)(2)(C), (b), and (c)(1)
shall be in effect. (a)-(f) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, for a pilot period
to end December 10, 2010, a proposed rule change submitted by the BATS
Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX
Exchange, Inc., International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., and National Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the
``Exchanges''), to amend certain of their respective rules to set forth
clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking
erroneous trades.\3\ The changes were adopted to address concerns that
the lack of clear guidelines for dealing with clearly erroneous
transactions may have added to the confusion and uncertainty faced by
investors on May 6, 2010. In connection with its resumption of trading
of NMS Stocks through PSX, the Exchange amended Rule 3312 to conform it
to the newly-adopted changes to the Exchanges' clearly erroneous rules,
so that it could participate in the pilot program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63023 (September 30,
2010), 75 FR 61802 (October 6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the pilot program has been successful in
providing greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking
erroneous trades. The Exchange also believes that a four month
extension of the pilot is warranted so that it may continue to monitor
the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider
appropriate adjustments, as necessary.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ which requires
the rules of an exchange to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is
designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \6\ of the Act
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule meets these requirements in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning decisions to break erroneous
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\ 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 such waiver will allow the
pilot program to continue uninterrupted and help ensure uniformity
among the national securities exchanges and FINRA with respect to the
treatment of clearly erroneous transactions.\9\ Accordingly, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates
the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2010-173 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-PHLX-2010-173. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
PHLX-2010-173 and should be submitted on or before January 5, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31453 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		July 30, 2015

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

FROM:	Gavin Lau, EPA Region 2/CASD-APB

SUBJECT:	August 19, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 19, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

Ms. Lois New, Acting Director, Office of Climate Change
Mr. Robert Sliwinski, Director, Bureau of Air Quality
Mr. Scott Griffin
Mr. Michael Sheehan

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority:
Mr. David Coup, Assistant Director

New York State Department of Public Service:

Mr. James Austin

Questions Submitted for August 13, 2014 call

Building Block #2: Natural Gas:  New York would like to discuss a number of issues regarding the equity of EPA's approach to this building block, including the following questions:
   * How did EPA take into account limitations of a state's electricity and natural gas distribution systems, the impact on a state's diversity of fuel mix, and other issues regarding technical implementation (e.g., reliability rules and transmission constraints that impact dispatch) when setting a target of 70% natural gas utilization?
   * States with deregulated electricity systems, like New York, have extremely limited ability to regulate the dispatch of power plants.  Did EPA consider the differences between regulated and deregulated systems in determining the potential emission reductions under this building block?
Building Block #3: Renewables and nuclear:  In addition to discussing how EPA applied this building block, New York would like to discuss alternative approaches to this building block, including the alternative based on technical and market potential.  Specific questions include:
   * The calculation for the northeastern regional renewables target uses a 29% figure for NY's RPS, but that includes existing hydro, but states are not allowed to count existing hydro for compliance purposes.  Instead, NY's renewables target excluding existing hydro is in the vicinity of 10%.  Will EPA correct this apparent inconsistency if it adheres to this approach for setting a renewables target?
   * Has EPA considered using an energy target (MWh) in lieu of a percentage?
   * How does EPA propose that states would maintain at-risk nuclear plants, given that the NRC and federal regulatory system could deem such plants no longer safe for operation or otherwise dictate their status?
   * Discuss how new imported hydropower can be used to meet either a rate-based or mass-based target?
Building Block #4: Energy Efficiency:  The current methodology in the energy efficiency building block is setup to assume that all states reach a point where incremental annual energy efficiency additions are 1.5% of retail sales.
   * Has EPA considered using a methodology that instead requires all states to get to a cumulative annual energy efficiency level as a percentage of retail sales? Such an approach would allow early acting states like New York to build upon their cumulative 2012 efficiency level (almost 7% of NY retail sales vs. national average of about 4%) while encouraging other states to "pick the low hanging fruit" more rapidly to result in more substantial emissions reductions overall.
Rate to Mass Conversion:  The EPA documents provide an illustrative example of making this conversion and staff have emphasized that this is merely "guidance".  The RGGI states are considering modeling that would help us comment productively on the methodology as well as inform us on what our mass-based limit might look like.  We have three assumptions that we would like to discuss:
   * Because EPA indicates that states will get credit for all RE/EE measures after the proposal date, and since RE/EE are already included in setting our states' intensity targets, we assume no RE/EE beyond 2014 in establishing our mass-based limit.
   * We assume the cap is our only enforceable measure (and modeling will show what complementary policies, including RE/EE measures, we expect will help us achieve the cap).
   * We assume that we can incorporate projections of demand growth due to increased reliance on electric vehicles.