Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42037 

Commission with regard to this collection of 

information should be in writing, with reference to 

File No. S7–08–09, and be submitted to the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of 

Investor Education and Advocacy, 100 F Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–0213. As OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning the 

collections of information between 30 and 60 days 

after publication, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 

30 days of publication. 

56See Proposal, 74 FR at 18090–18103. 

57See Proposal, 74 FR at 18103–18104. 

58 5 U.S.C. 603. 

59See Proposal, 74 FR at 18105–18107. 

17. The Proposal includes a 

discussion of estimated costs and 

benefits of the proposed rules.56 We are 

sensitive to the costs and benefits of the 

alternative uptick rule, and encourage 

commenters to discuss any additional 

costs or benefits specific to the 

alternative uptick rule and/or beyond 

those discussed discussed in the 

Proposal, as well as any reduction in 

costs. What would be the costs and 

benefits of the alternative uptick rule 

versus the proposed modified uptick 

rule, the proposed uptick rule, the 

circuit breaker halt rule or a circuit 

breaker triggering either the proposed 

modified uptick rule or the proposed 

uptick rule? What would be the general 

costs and benefits of short sales being 

subject to the alternative uptick rule? 

Commenters should provide analysis 

and data to support their views of the 

costs and benefits associated with the 

alternative uptick rule. 

18. The Proposal includes a 

discussion of whether the proposed 

rules would promote efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation.57

We request comment on whether the 

alternative uptick rule would likely 

promote efficiency, capital formation, 

and competition. 

19. The Proposal includes an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’), in accordance with the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act,58 regarding the proposed rules.59

We solicit written comments regarding 

our IRFA analysis. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

number of small entities that would be 

affected by the alternative uptick rule. 

We request that commenters provide 

empirical data to quantify the number of 

small entities that could be affected by 

the proposed amendments. We request 

comment on whether the proposed 

amendments would have any effects 

that we have not discussed. We also 

request that commenters describe the 

nature of any impact on small entities 

and provide empirical data to support 

the extent of the impact. 

20. A number of commenters stated 

that their first preference would be for 

the Commission not to adopt any of the 

short sale regulations set forth in the 

Proposal, and this option along with the 

alternative uptick rule and all other 

options discussed in the Proposal are 

under active consideration. We request 

comments on the position that the best 

result for investors and the markets 

would be for the Commission not to 

adopt any additional short selling 

regulations at this time. If the 

Commission determines that additional 

short selling regulations are necessary, 

what option, including the alternative 

uptick rule, would produce the best 

result for investors and the markets? 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19989 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1158] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers 

Alternate Route), Belle Chasse, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning the operation of 

the SR 23 bridge across the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate 

Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking proposed 

to allow the bridge to remain closed-tonavigation for an additional 90 minutes 

during weekday afternoons to facilitate 

the movement of vehicular traffic. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking published at 73 FR 13161, 

March 26, 2009, is withdrawn on 

August 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2008–1158 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have any questions about this 

notice, call or e-mail David Frank, 

Bridge Administration Branch, 

telephone (504) 671–2128, e-mail 

David.m.frank@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 26, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers 

Alternate Route), Belle Chasse, LA’’ in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 13161). The 

rulemaking concerned a change to the 

regulation governing the operation of 

the SR 23 bridge across the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate 

Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, 

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. 

Presently, the draw of the bridge need 

not open for the passage of vessels in 

the afternoon from 3:30 p.m. until 5:30 

p.m. Plaquemines Parish Government 

requested that an additional 90 minutes 

be added to the closure in the afternoon 

so that the draw need not open for the 

passage of vessels from 3:30 p.m. until 

7 p.m. 

Withdrawal 

On site analysis of the traffic patterns 

around the bridge and proposed 

modernization of the traffic lights on SR 

23 which will improve the traffic flow 

indicate that the change is not 

warranted at this time. It was also 

determined that due to the increased 

time that the bridge was not required to 

open, longer delays at the end of the 

closure period were experienced by 

vehicular traffic. Additionally, road 

construction on another arterial 

roadway has caused a spike in traffic 

that should adjust following completion 

of the roadwork. Following all repairs to 

the bridge, modernization of the traffic 

management scheme, and the roadway 

repairs, if the Plaquemines Parish 

Government wishes to reapply for a 

change in the operating schedule, the 

Coast Guard will conduct a new 

investigation to determine if changes to 

the operating schedule are warranted. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42038 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Mary E. Landry, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–19957 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0034; FRL–8946–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Clean Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Maryland on October 24, 2007 and June 

30, 2008, except for the 2009 nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) ozone season and NOX

annual allocations, the 2009 set-aside 

allocations and the Compliance 

Supplement Pool (CSP) allocations. 

These revisions address the 

requirements of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). Although the 

District of Columbia (DC) Circuit found 

CAIR to be flawed, the rule was 

remanded without vacatur and thus 

remains in place. Thus, EPA is 

continuing to approve CAIR provisions 

into SIPs as appropriate. CAIR, as 

promulgated, requires States to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX that significantly contribute to, or 

interfere with maintenance of, the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or 

ozone in any downwind State. CAIR 

establishes budgets for SO2 and NOX for 

States that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in downwind States and 

requires the significantly contributing 

States to submit SIP revisions that 

implement these budgets. States have 

the flexibility to choose which control 

measures to adopt to achieve the 

budgets, including participation in EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs 

addressing SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions. In the full SIP 

revisions that EPA is proposing to 

approve, Maryland will meet CAIR 

requirements by participating in these 

cap-and-trade programs. EPA is 

proposing to approve the full SIP 

revisions, as interpreted and clarified 

herein, as fully implementing the CAIR 

requirements for Maryland, except for 

the 2009 NOX ozone season and NOX

annual allocations, the 2009 set-aside 

allocations and the CSP allocations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 21, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2009–0034 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0034, 

Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2009– 

0034. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by 

e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR 

and the CAIR Federal Implementation 

Plans (FIP)? 

III. What Are the General Requirements of 

CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? 

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP 

Submittals? 

V. Analysis of Maryland’s CAIR SIP 

Submittal 

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations 

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs 

C. Applicability Provisions for NonElectric Generating Units (non-EGU) 

Sources 

D. NOX Allowance Allocations 

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From 

Compliance Supplement Pool 

F. Individual Opt-in Units 

G. Clarification of Other Provisions in 

Maryland’s CAIR Rule 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve, as 

interpreted and clarified herein, the full 

CAIR SIP revisions, submitted by 

Maryland on October 24, 2007 and June 

30, 2008, as meeting the applicable 

CAIR requirements by requiring certain 

electric generating units (EGUs) to 

participate in the EPA-administered 

CAIR cap-and-trade programs 

addressing SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions. The October 

24, 2007 SIP revision consisted of new 

Maryland rule COMAR 26.11.28—Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (Maryland revision 

#07–14). The June 30, 2008 SIP revision 

consisted of revisions to Regulations .01 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1