[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69396-69401]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24082]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432; FRL-9953-66-Region 9]

Denial of Request for Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is denying a request
submitted by California for extension of the attainment date for the
1997 24-hour and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 9, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve, conditionally
approve, and disapprove state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by California (the ``State'' or California Air Resources
Board (CARB)) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements
for the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP revisions on which we
proposed action are the ``2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5
Standard,'' which the State submitted on June 25, 2015, and the ``2018
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 SIP, Plan Supplement,'' submitted on August 13, 2015.
We refer to these SIP submissions collectively as the ``2015
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``the Plan.'' The 2015 PM2.5 Plan
is a PM2.5 Serious area attainment plan for the SJV and
includes a request to extend the applicable attainment date for the 24-
hour and annual PM2.5 standards by three and five years,
respectively, on the basis that attainment by December 31, 2015 is
impracticable, in accordance with CAA section 188(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the following elements of the Plan as
satisfying applicable CAA requirements: (1) The 2012 base year
emissions inventories; (2) the best available control measures (BACM)/
best available control technology demonstration; (3) the attainment
demonstration; (4) the reasonable further progress demonstration; (5)
the State's application for an extension of the Serious area attainment
date to December 31, 2018 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and to December 31, 2020 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS;
(6) the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (the
``District''

or SJVUAPCD) commitment to amend and implement revisions to SJVUAPCD
Rule 4692 (``Commercial Charbroiling'') for under-fired charbroilers on
a specific schedule; and (7) the motor vehicle emissions budgets for
2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020. Additionally, the EPA proposed to approve
the Plan's inter-pollutant trading mechanism for use in transportation
conformity analyses, with the condition that trades are limited to
substituting excess reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for direct PM2.5 emission reductions.
    The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the Plan's quantitative
milestones based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year
after the date of the Plan approval, consistent with CAA section
110(k)(4). Finally, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Plan's
contingency measures for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(9).
    Section 188(e) of the CAA provides the Administrator with
discretionary authority to grant a state's request for an extension of
a Serious area attainment date where certain conditions are met. Before
the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section
188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment
date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that
attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the plan for the area includes the ``most stringent
measures'' that are included in the implementation plan of any state or
are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented
in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable.\2\ The EPA's determination of
whether such a plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious
date practicable depends on whether the plan provides for
implementation of BACM no later than the statutory implementation
deadline, the most stringent measures (MSM) as expeditiously as
practicable, and any other technologically and economically feasible
measures that will result in attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. at 6940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of the Act to
offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent control
requirements, the EPA interprets the MSM provision to assure that
additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area beyond
the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to do
this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be
subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as
necessary--i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM
control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require
reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected
during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the
BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the
area given the longer attainment timeframe.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 6941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA provided a 30-day period for public comment on the proposed
rule and received comment letters from Mr. Paul Cort, on behalf of
Earthjustice, and from Mr. Shawn Dolan. The comments from Earthjustice
primarily argued that the control measure analysis in the Plan for
several sources categories, including ammonia emission sources, glass
melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines used in agricultural
operations, fail to satisfy CAA requirements. The comments from Mr.
Shawn Dolan argued that EPA Method 9 should be phased out in favor of
other methods for evaluating visible emissions such as the Digital
Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT).

II. Final Action on Section 188(e) Extension Request

    Based on our reevaluation of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and
related control measures and consideration of the comments we received,
the EPA is denying CARB's request for extension of the December 31,
2015 Serious area attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the SJV. As explained in our proposed rule, one of the minimum
criteria for extension of an attainment date under CAA section 188(e)
is that the state demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that
are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in
practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area. For
a number of source categories, CARB and the SJVUAPCD have demonstrated
that the SIP includes the most stringent measures required or achieved
in practice in other areas. For the following reasons, however, we find
that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have not demonstrated to the EPA's
satisfaction that the plan for the SJV area includes all MSM that can
feasibly be implemented in the area.
    First, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately
demonstrate that it includes MSM for sources of ammonia emissions in
the SJV.\4\ As explained in our proposed rule, three source categories
collectively emitted 95% of all ammonia emissions in the 2012 annual
average base year inventory for the SJV area: Confined animal
facilities (CAFs), composting operations, and fertilizer
application.\5\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that three SIP-
approved rules designed to limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions also control ammonia emissions from two of these source
categories (i.e., CAFs and composting operations) but does not
substantiate these conclusions. For example, according to the 2015
PM2.5 Plan, many of the VOC control measures in SJVUAPCD
Rule 4570 (``Confined Animal Facilities''), as amended October 21,
2010, have an ammonia ``co-benefit,'' and these measures have reduced
ammonia emissions in the SJV by over 100 tons per day (tpd).\6\ The
2015 PM2.5 Plan does not, however, specifically identify any
enforceable requirement in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 that reduces ammonia
emissions from CAF operations, nor does it substantiate its calculation
of ammonia emission reductions attributed to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 other
than by reference to an outdated analysis from 2006.\7\ Moreover, a
number of provisions in SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 allow CAF owners/operators
to implement ``alternative mitigation

measures'' \8\ in lieu of the mitigation measures listed in the rule,
without any requirement to ensure that such alternative mitigation
measures achieve any particular level of ammonia emission
reductions.\9\ We find these analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan
insufficient to demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for ammonia
emissions from CAFs in the SJV. Because emissions from CAFs account for
more than half of all ammonia emissions in the SJV,\10\ a more robust
analysis of potential ammonia emission reduction measures for this
source category is necessary to satisfy the MSM requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As we explained in our proposed rule, the EPA does not agree
at this time with the State's and District's conclusion in the Plan
that ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 standards in
the SJV. 81 FR 6936, 6948 (February 9, 2016). Accordingly,
consistent with the regulatory presumption under subpart 4 of part
D, title I of the Act, ammonia emission sources are subject to
control evaluation for purposes of implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    \5\ 81 FR 6936, 6978 (February 9, 2016); see also 2015
PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, p. C-239.
    \6\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-239 to C-240.
    \7\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-239 to C-275
and SJVUAPCD, ``Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Re-Adoption of
Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),'' June 18, 2009, at Appendix
F, ``Ammonia Reductions Analysis for Proposed Rule 4570 (Confined
Animal Facilities),'' June 15, 2006 (discussing various assumptions
underlying the District's calculation of ammonia emission factors
without identifying relevant emissions inventories). We note that
CARB has provided the EPA with significantly lower estimates of
ammonia emission reductions achieved by SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 based on
more recent calculations of reductions from a 2012 baseline
emissions inventory. Email dated September 3, 2015, from Gabe Ruiz
(CARB) to Larry Biland and Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``SJV
Livestock Ammonia Emissions with and without Rule 4570.''
    \8\ ``Alternative Mitigation Measure'' is defined in SJVUAPCD
Rule 4570 as ``a mitigation measure that is determined by the APCO,
ARB, and EPA to achieve reductions that are equal to or exceed the
reductions that would be achieved by other mitigation measures
listed in this rule that owners/operators could choose to comply
with rule requirements.'' SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21,
2010), section 3.4. Because SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 explicitly applies
only to VOC emissions, the requirement for equivalent ``reductions''
in section 3.4 applies only to VOC emission reductions and does not
apply to ammonia emission reductions.
    \9\ See, e.g., SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 (amended October 21, 2010) at
section 5.6, Table 4.1.F.
    \10\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, pp. B-17 and B-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan states that SJVUAPCD Rule
4565 (``Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations''), as
adopted March 15, 2007, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4566 (``Organic Material
Composting Operations''), as adopted August 18, 2011, limit ammonia
emissions from composting operations but does not specifically identify
any enforceable requirement in either of these rules that reduces
ammonia emissions, nor does it identify a basis for the District's
statement that ``the [ammonia] control efficiencies are assumed to be
the same as the VOC control efficiencies . . . since the same control
measures will reduce both VOC and [ammonia] from these operations.''
\11\ By contrast, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 1133.2 (``Emission Reductions from Co-Composting Operations''), as
adopted January 10, 2003, and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (``Emission Reductions
from Greenwaste Composting Operations''), as adopted July 8, 2011, both
contain specific requirements to reduce ammonia emissions and, in some
cases, to achieve an overall ammonia emission reduction of at least 80%
by weight from specified baseline levels.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-271 to C-278.
    \12\ SCAQMD Rule 1133.2 (adopted January 10, 2003), section (d)
and SCAQMD Rule 1133.3 (adopted July 8, 2011), section (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to fertilizer application, the 2015 PM2.5
Plan discusses ongoing research on improved methods of fertilizer
application to maximize nitrogen use efficiency and minimize air and
water quality impacts and states that ``the weight of evidence suggests
that managing nutrient applications to fields . . . has significantly
reduced losses of nitrogen compounds to the environment, including
leaching of nitrogen compounds to groundwater and air emissions such as
ammonia and nitrous oxide.'' \13\ The 2015 PM2.5 Plan does
not, however, provide any specific analysis of potential control
measures to reduce ammonia emissions from fertilizer application or
identify any enforceable SIP requirement that reduces ammonia emissions
from this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-268 to C-271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan fails to identify any
specific, enforceable requirement to reduce ammonia emissions in the
SIP for the area and does not demonstrate that the State or District
adequately considered potential control measures to expand or
strengthen the reasonably available control measure (RACM) strategy for
ammonia emission sources.\14\ We therefore find the District's analyses
in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to demonstrate that the
plan includes MSM for ammonia emission sources in the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The SJVUAPCD's Moderate area plan for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, adopted in 2012, relies upon the same SIP-
approved VOC control measures to satisfy RACM requirements for these
NAAQS. See EPA, Final Rule, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley;
Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' August 16,
2016 (pre-publication notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately
demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from
internal combustion engines used in agricultural operations in the SJV.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, as amended November 14, 2013, regulates
NOX emissions from two types of agricultural internal
combustion (IC) engines rated at 25 brake horsepower (bhp) or greater:
Spark-ignited (SI) engines and compression-ignited (CI) engines.\15\
For SI engines used in agricultural operations, the rule establishes
NOX emission limits of 90 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
for rich-burn engines and 150 ppmv for lean-burn engines.\16\ For CI
engines used in agricultural operations, Rule 4702 requires compliance
by specified dates with EPA Tier 3 or Tier 4 NOX emission
standards for non-road CI engines in 40 CFR part 89 or part 1039, as
applicable, or an 80 ppmv NOX emission limit, depending on
engine type.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), sections
2.0 and 5.2.
    \16\ Id. at section 5.2.3 and Table 3.
    \17\ Id. at section 5.2.4 and Table 4 and section 3.37 (defining
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, by contrast, establishes an 11 ppmv
NOX emission limit for all stationary SI and CI engines
rated over 50 bhp, effective July 1, 2011, with limited exceptions for
agricultural engines that meet certain conditions.\18\ According to the
SCAQMD, three natural gas-fired SI engines used in agricultural
operations are currently subject to the 11 ppmv NOX emission
limit in Rule 1110.2 and use nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR,
also called ``three-way catalysts'') control technology to comply with
this emission limit.\19\ The Feather River Air Quality Management
District (FRAQMD) Rule 3.22, as amended October 6, 2014, establishes
NOX emission limits of 25 parts per million (ppm) and 65 ppm
for rich-burn and lean-burn agricultural engines in southern FRAQMD,
respectively, except for agricultural engines that emit less than 50%
of the major source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/or
hazardous air pollutants.\20\ The NOX emission limits for
agricultural engines in SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 and FRAQMD Rule 3.22 are
significantly more stringent than the 90 ppmv and 150 ppmv limits
applicable to agricultural

engines in SJVUAPCD Rule 4702. Moreover, SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 itself
establishes NOX emission limits for IC engines used in other
(non-agricultural) operations that range from 11 to 50 ppmv for rich-
burn engines and 11 to 75 ppmv for lean-burn engines, depending on type
of fuel and use.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 (amended February 1, 2008), section
(d)(1) (referencing Tables I and II). Rule 1110.2 provides an
exemption from the 11 ppmv emission limit for agricultural engines
that meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards and either of two additional
conditions: (1) The engine operator submits documentation to the
SCAQMD, by the deadline for a permit application, that the
applicable electric utility has rejected an application for an
electrical line extension to the location of the engines, or (2) the
SCAQMD determines that the operator does not qualify for funding
under California Health and Safety Code Section 44229 to replace,
retrofit or repower the engine. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 at section
(h)(9).
    \19\ Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to
Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Question on Engines under Rule
1110.2.''
    \20\ FRAQMD Rule 3.22 (amended October 6, 2014), section D.1,
Table 2 (South FRAQMD Emission Limits) and section B.1.e
(Exemptions). As of June 2016, staff at the FRAQMD were unaware of
any stationary SI engines currently operating at agricultural
facilities in the Feather River area that have demonstrated
compliance with the 25 ppm or 65 ppm NOX emission limits
in FRAQMD Rule 3.22. See email dated June 2, 2016, from Alamjit
Mangat (FRAQMD) to Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Engines in FRAQMD''
(stating that all 423 agricultural engines currently operating in
the Feather River area qualify for an exemption from the
NOX emission limits in FRAQMD Rule 3.22). Nonetheless,
because these NOX emission limits are approved into the
California SIP as part of an earlier version of FRAQMD Rule 3.22
(see 77 FR 12493, March 1, 2012), they are required as MSM if they
can feasibly be implemented in the SJV.
    \21\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4702 (amended November 14, 2013), section
5.2.1. Table 1 and section 5.2.2. Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Appendix C of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVUAPCD
estimated the following costs of replacing agricultural SI engines:
$76,209 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv
NOX limit; $42,146 per ton to replace a lean-burn engine to
meet a 65 ppmv NOX limit; $59,754 per ton to replace a rich-
burn engine to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit; and $69,521 per
ton to replace a rich-burn engine to meet a 25 ppmv NOX
limit.\22\ The District subsequently submitted additional information
indicating that the cost of replacing a lean-burn engine to meet 65
ppmv or 25 ppmv NOX limits would be the same as the
replacement cost to meet an 11 ppmv NOX limit ($76,209 per
ton), as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) would be necessary for a
lean-burn engine to meet any of these limits, and indicating that the
cost of replacing a rich-burn engine to meet a 65 ppmv NOX
limit would also be the same as the replacement cost to meet 25 ppmv or
11 ppmv NOX limits ($59,754 or $69,521 per ton), as three-
way catalysts (NSCR) would be necessary for a rich-burn engine to meet
any of these limits.\23\ The SJVUAPCD did not, however, identify the
bases for any of these cost estimates or submit related technical
documentation. At the EPA's request, the SJVUAPCD provided additional
information about the technological and economic feasibility of IC
engine retrofits to meet lower NOX limits but similarly did
not identify the bases for its cost estimates or provide any related
technical documentation.\24\ Moreover, according to the SCAQMD, the
cost-effectiveness of replacing an agricultural SI engine ranges from
$5,650 to $29,000 per ton of NOX reduced and, for most
engine categories, is below $20,000 per ton.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C, pp. C-132 to C-139.
    \23\ Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to
Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``Additional SJV info.''
    \24\ Email dated June 25, 2015, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to
Andrew Steckel (EPA), regarding ``Requested Information.''
    \25\ Email dated May 3, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to
Nicole Law (EPA), regarding ``Question on Engines under Rule
1110.2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD's cost
estimates for engine replacements or retrofits, the contrary
information presented by the SCAQMD regarding costs for the same type
of engines, and the significantly lower NOX emission levels
achieved in practice in the South Coast area, as well as the lower
NOX limits for similar engines required in SIP-approved
rules for both the Feather River area and the SJV, we find the
District's analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to
demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions
from IC engines used in agricultural operations.
    Third, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately
demonstrate that it includes MSM for NOX emissions from
container glass melting furnaces in the SJV. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, as
amended May 19, 2011, establishes a NOX emission limit of
1.5 pounds of NOX per ton (lbs NOX/ton) of glass
pulled, over a 30-day rolling average.\26\ Under the SCAQMD's Regional
Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Program, the SCAQMD determined in
2000 that a NOX limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ton of glass
pulled represented Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT)
\27\ for glass melting furnaces, and in 2015 the SCAQMD determined that
a lower NOX limit of 0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass
pulled represents BARCT for this source category based on use of SCR or
the ``Ultra Cat ceramic filter system,'' which the SCAQMD found is
guaranteed to achieve an 80% NOX reduction and has been
installed or is under construction at 12 glass manufacturing locations
worldwide.\28\ The Owens-Brockway Glass Container facility, which
manufactures clear and colored beer bottles, is the only glass melting
facility currently operating in the South Coast area.\29\ At the EPA's
request, the SCAQMD provided continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) data from February 2015 for the Owens-Brockway facility. The
CEMS data shows that the facility operated at approximately 90%
production capacity and consistently emitted below 0.72 lbs
NOX/ton of glass pulled during that month, using oxyfuel
firing to control NOX emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (amended May 19, 2011), section 5.1.
    \27\ BARCT is defined as ``an emission limitation that is based
on the maximum degree of reduction achievable taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or
category of source.'' California Health & Safety Code Section 40406.
    \28\ The RECLAIM program requires that container glass melting
facilities achieve NOX reductions consistent with the
2015 BARCT determination (0.24 lbs NOX/ton of glass
pulled) by 2022. SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended December 4, 2015),
subparagraph (f)(1)(L) and Table 6 (``RECLAIM NOX 2022
Ending Emission Factors''); see also SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff
Report, ``Proposed Amendments to Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM), NOX RECLAIM,'' December 4,
2015, at pp. 170-171.
    \29\ Email dated May 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to
Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and
container glass facility;'' see also email dated April 28, 2016,
from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding
``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and container glass facility.''
    \30\ Email dated April 13, 2016, from Kevin Orellana (SCAQMD) to
Idalia Perez (EPA) regarding ``question regarding SCAQMD boilers and
container glass facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the SJVUAPCD, NOX emissions from glass
melting facilities operating oxyfuel or SCR systems can vary widely
depending on multiple factors, including the stability of the glass
pull rate and the condition and age of the furnace refractory and
insulation.\31\ The SJVUAPCD states that glass melting facilities in
the SJV manufacture a large variety of sizes and shapes of still and
sparkling wine glass bottles and often must respond to fluctuating
demands in the wine industry, which require operators to use their
furnaces in a manner that results in a less stable pull rate compared
to facilities located in the South Coast, which mainly produce beer
bottles. Additionally, according to the SJVUAPCD, as furnaces age the
refractory is not as effective at retaining heat in the furnace and the
burner fire rate must be increased over time to maintain the same
overall furnace and glass temperature, which increases NOX
emissions on a lb/ton basis. The District states that all of these
factors result in varied NOX emission rates depending on
production conditions, furnace age, and furnace design.\32\ The
District did not, however, submit or reference any technical
documentation to support its conclusions about the feasibility of lower
NOX emission limits for glass melting furnaces in the SJV.
Given the absence of a technical basis for the SJVUAPCD's conclusions
about the feasibility of more stringent controls for glass melting
furnaces, and the available information from the SCAQMD about
significantly lower NOX emission levels that have been
achieved in practice both in the South Coast and elsewhere, we find the
District's analyses in the 2015 PM2.5 Plan insufficient to
demonstrate that the plan includes MSM for NOX emissions
from container glass melting furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Email dated April 27, 2016, from Sheraz Gill (SJVUAPCD) to
Andrew Steckel (EPA) regarding ``Additional SJV info.''
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the 2015 PM2.5 Plan does not adequately
demonstrate that the State and District reevaluated, for potential
adoption, control measures rejected

during the State's and District's development of the previous
attainment plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area
(the ``2008 PM2.5 Plan'') \33\ in accordance with the EPA's
longstanding interpretation of the MSM requirement. As explained in our
proposed rule, given the strategy in the nonattainment provisions of
the Act to offset longer attainment time frames with more stringent
control requirements, the EPA interprets the MSM provision to assure
that additional controls that can feasibly be implemented in the area
beyond the set of measures adopted as BACM are implemented. Two ways to
do this are (1) to require that more sources and source categories be
subject to MSM analysis than to BACM analysis and controlled as
necessary--i.e., by expanding the applicability provisions in the MSM
control requirements to cover more sources, and (2) to require
reanalysis of any measures adopted in other areas that were rejected
during the BACM analysis because they could not be implemented by the
BACM implementation deadline to see if they are now feasible for the
area given the longer attainment timeframe.\34\ In this case, because
CARB submitted both the BACM demonstration required under CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) and the MSM demonstration required under CAA section
188(e) simultaneously, we compared the BACM and MSM analyses in the
2015 PM2.5 Plan with the previous RACM analysis carried out
by the District to support the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule approving most
elements of 2008 PM2.5 Plan).
    \34\ 81 FR 6936, 6941 (February 9, 2016); see also EPA, Final
Rule, ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' 81 FR 58010,
58096-58097 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 PM2.5 Plan identifies four District control
measures not included in the RACM control strategy that the EPA
approved as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.\35\ Collectively,
these four District measures are projected to achieve a total of 0.0357
tpd of NOX emission reductions and 3.3 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2018 and to achieve a total of
0.4011 tpd of NOX emission reductions and 2.0 tpd of direct
PM2.5 emission reductions by 2020.\36\ The MSM evaluation in
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan provides little discussion of actions to
either expand the applicability provisions in the RACM control measures
to cover more sources, or to reanalyze measures that were rejected
during the previous RACM analysis to see if they are now feasible for
the area given the longer attainment timeframe (i.e., the extended
attainment dates requested by the State). While the Plan provides the
District's conclusions that its existing SIP control measures satisfy
BACM and MSM requirements and that no additional control measures are
feasible, it provides limited technical support for these
conclusions.\37\ We note that many of the SJVUAPCD rules that the 2015
PM2.5 Plan relies on to address the MSM requirement have not
been revised in many years \38\ and that the State and District should
conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of potential measures to
strengthen these regulations, subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking,
to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 81 FR at 6973-6975 (February 9, 2016). The four District
control measures are: (1) Rule 4308 (``Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr''), as amended November 14,
2013; (2) an enforceable commitment to amend Rule 4692 (``Commercial
Charbroiling'') in 2016 to add requirements for under-fired
charbroilers; (3) Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters''), as amended September 18, 2014; and (4) Rule 4905
(``Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces''), as
amended January 22, 2015.
    \36\ Id. at 6975, Table 9.
    \37\ See generally 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C (BACM
and MSM for Stationary and Area Sources).
    \38\ See, e.g., 2015 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix C at pp. C-
106 to C-114 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, as adopted August 19,
2004); pp. C-194 to C-197 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule 8061, as amended
August 19, 2004); and pp. C-275 to C-278 (discussing SJVUAPCD Rule
4565, as adopted March 15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the deficiencies in the MSM analyses, we find that the
State and District have not demonstrated to the EPA's satisfaction that
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan includes the most stringent measures
that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are
achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in
the area, in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 188(e).
For these reasons, the EPA is denying CARB's request for extension of
the December 31, 2015 Serious area attainment date under CAA section
188(e) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
    We note that the EPA had proposed to grant the State's requested
extension of the Serious area attainment date in the SJV for the
reasons explained in our February 9, 2016 proposed action on the 2015
PM2.5 Plan. Public comments on our proposal, however,
presented information indicating that our proposal to grant the
requested extension would not be consistent with the requirements of
the Act. Our proposal to grant the State's request for extension of the
Serious area attainment date raised the question as to whether the 2015
PM2.5 Plan satisfied the minimum criteria in CAA section
188(e) for such extensions. Implicit in any such proposal to grant an
extension requested by a state is the possibility that the EPA may
decide to deny the extension, after considering public comments.
Because our February 9, 2016 proposed rule provided adequate notice of
both the possibility that the EPA would grant the State's request for
extension of the attainment date for the SJV and the possibility that
the EPA would deny this request, we are not providing additional
opportunity for comment before this final action takes effect.
    The EPA is taking final action only to deny the State's requested
extension of the attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
the SJV and is not finalizing its proposed actions on other elements of
the 2015 PM2.5 Plan at 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016) at this
time. The EPA will take final action on the remaining portions of the
submitted 2015 PM2.5 Plan, as appropriate, in a subsequent
rulemaking.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-24082 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359

FROM:	Conrad Chin, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	October 24, 2007

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Foundry Industry Representatives on October 4,
2007

I.	Participants

Foundry Representatives:

Christian Richter

Jeff Hannapel

Jeet Radia

Steve Lewallen

Craig Schmeisser

Ann Neudorfer

Ray Ostrowski

EPA Representatives

Steve Fruh

Conrad Chin

EPA Contractor

Jeff Coburn

II.	Summary of Discussion

Representatives of the iron and steel foundry industry requested a
meeting at RTP with EPA to discuss their concerns on the proposed
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources.

Industry provided information and opinion on the following topics during
the meeting:

Cost effectiveness/cost impact of the proposed rule

Stack test and pressure drop range for baghouses

Scrap management practices and mercury switch removal program

Capture/collection requirements for melting furnaces

Title V permit exemption

Specific Discussion

Industry representatives provided a handout (attached) to demonstrate
their claim that the uncontrolled emission factor should be less than 2
lb/ton for EIFs.  They suggested that the emission factor should be 1.36
lb/ton.  According to the industry, the cost effectiveness of  the
proposed rule would decrease by using the recommended emission factor.

Regarding stack testing, industry suggested that establishing an
operating range for a baghouse pressure drop would be technically
infeasible.

Regarding scrap management, industry informed EPA that foundries are
having difficulties in identifying scrap suppliers who participate in
EPA-approved programs.  Industry suggested that foundries would need
additional time to comply with this provision.  Industry also suggested
that the scrap management practices should not be imposed on auto
components other than shredded auto because auto components do not
contain mercury.

Regarding monitoring, industry claimed the capture requirements were
inconsistent in the rule, and requested clarification.

Regarding permitting, industry raised the issue of Title V and suggested
that area source foundries should be exempt from Title V permits.

Meeting Minutes Memorandum – October 4, 2007, Foundries Meeting

  PAGE  2

Meeting Minutes Memorandum


[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23589]
[DOCID:fr04my10-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0347]

Safety Zone Regulations, Seafair Blue Angels Air Show
Performance, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone on Lake Washington,
WA for the annual Seafair Blue Angels Air Show from 10 a.m. on August
5, 2010 to 6 p.m. on August 8, 2010. This action is necessary to ensure
the safety of the public from inherent dangers associated with aerial
displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or
Designated Representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1319 will be enforced on: August
5, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; August 6, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 6
p.m.; August 7, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and August 8, 2010 from
7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2004, the Coast Guard published
a Final Rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 35250) to establish a
safety zone on the waters of Lake Washington for the annual Seafair
Blue Angels Air Show Performance. The Coast Guard will enforce the
safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.1319 on August 5, 2010 from 10
a.m. to 3 p.m.; August 6, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; August 7, 2010
from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and August 8, 2010 from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1319, the following area is
designated as a safety zone: All waters of Lake Washington, Washington
State, enclosed by the following points: Near the termination of
Roanoke Way 47[deg]35'44'' N, 122[deg]14'47'' W; thence to
47[deg]35'48'' N, 122[deg]15'45'' W; thence to 47[deg]36'02.1'' N,
122[deg]15'50.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'56.6'' N, 122[deg]16'29.2'' W;
thence to 47[deg]35'42'' N, 122[deg]16'24'' W; thence to the east side
of the entrance to the west high-rise of the Interstate 90 bridge;
thence westerly along the south side of the bridge to the shoreline on
the western terminus of the bridge; thence southerly along the
shoreline to Andrews Bay at 47[deg]33'06'' N, 122[deg]15'32'' W; thence
northeast along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast
point at 47[deg]33'44'' N, 122[deg]15'04'' W; thence easterly along the
east-west line drawn tangent to Bailey Peninsula; thence northerly
along the shore of Mercer Island to the point of origin. [Datum: NAD
1983]
    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 165,
Subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except
for support vessels and support personnel, vessels registered with the
event organizer, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port
or Designated Representatives. Vessels and persons granted
authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions made by the Captain of the Port or Designated
Representative.
    The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1319 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
S.E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-10312 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35701-35703]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-0082]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0012,
Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner and 1625-0040, Application
for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), Merchant Mariner Medical
Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG
Periodic Drug Testing Form, and Merchant Mariner Evaluation of Fitness
for Entry Level Ratings, Merchant Mariner Credential, Merchant Mariner
Medical Certificate, Recognition of Foreign Certificate.
    Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July
16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-0082] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST. SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents,

including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether
to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2012-0082], and must be received by July 16,
2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2012-0082], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-0082'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8[frac12] by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0082'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0012 and 1625-0040.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 17081, March 23, 2012)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Mariner.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0012.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Shipping companies, masters or individuals in charge
of a vessel.
    Abstract: Title 46, United States Code, 10311 requires each master
or individual in charge of a vessel, for each merchant mariner being
discharged from the vessel to prepare a Certificate of Discharge to
Merchant Mariners and two copies. These documents are used to establish
evidence of sea service aboard U.S. flagged merchant vessels for
merchant mariners to upgrade their credentials, establish proof of
eligibility for union and other benefits, and in litigation where
vessel service is an issue.
    Forms: CG-718A.
    Burden Estimate The estimated burden has decreased from 2,443 hours
to 1,478 hours.
    2. Title: Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC),
Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel
Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, Merchant Mariner
Evaluation of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings, Merchant Mariner
Credential, Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Recognition of
Foreign Certificate.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0040.
    Type of Request Revision of a currently approved collection
    Respondents: Applicants for Merchant Mariner Credentials (MMC),
whether original, renewal, duplicate, raise of grade, or a new
endorsement on a previously issued MMC. Applicants for Medical
Certificates to include Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) endorsed credentialed mariners, and
first-class pilots as defined in the proposed rules, Implementation of
the Amendments to the International Convention on STCW for Seafarers,
1978, and Changes to Domestic Endorsements (Docket No. USCG-2004-
17914).
    Abstract: The Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC),
Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate Evaluation Report, Small Vessel
Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form, and Merchant
Mariner Evaluation of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings, contains the
following information: signature of applicant and supplementary
material required to show that the mariner meets the mandatory
requirements for the credential or medical certificate sought; proof of
applicant passing all applicable vision, hearing, medical, and/or
physical exams; negative chemical test for dangerous drugs; discharges
or other documentary evidence of sea service indicating the name,
tonnage, and propulsion power of the vessels, dates of service,
capacity in which the applicant served, and on what waters.
    Forms: CG-719B, CG-719K, CG-719S, CG-719P, CG-719K/E, CG-4610, CG-
4610A, and CG-4610B.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 54,416
hours to 57,083 hours a year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 6, 2012.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-14540 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 101 (Thursday, May 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28630-28631]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-D-0027]

Procedures for Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by
Premarket Approval Application Order; Draft Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Procedures for
Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by Premarket Approval
Application Order.'' The existing post-approval studies final guidance,
entitled ``Procedures for Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by PMA
Order,'' was issued in June 2009. This draft guidance is intended to
update the 2009 guidance to assist stakeholders with understanding
post-approval study requirements imposed as a condition of approval of
a premarket approval application (PMA). This draft guidance is not
final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by July 26, 2021 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2005-D-0027 for ``Procedures for Handling Post-Approval Studies
Imposed by Premarket Approval Application Order.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Procedures for Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by Premarket
Approval Application Order'' to the Office of Policy, Guidance and
Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nilsa Loyo-Berrios, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G114, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    To provide reasonable assurance, or the continued assurance, of
safety and effectiveness of an approved device, FDA may require a post-
approval study (PAS) as a condition of approval under 21 CFR
814.82(a)(2) and (a)(9). A PAS is usually a clinical or non-clinical
study, as specified in the PMA approval order, and is typically
intended to gather specific data to address questions about the
postmarket performance of or experience with an approved medical
device. As described in ``Balancing Premarket and Postmarket Data
Collection for Devices Subject to Premarket Approval,'' FDA may

consider it acceptable to collect certain data in the postmarket
setting, rather than premarket under certain circumstances when FDA has
uncertainty regarding certain benefits or risks of the device, but the
degree of uncertainty is acceptable in the context of the overall
benefit-risk profile of the device at the time of premarket approval.
The purpose of this draft guidance document is to assist stakeholders
with understanding PAS requirements imposed as a condition of a PMA by
providing:
     Procedural information;
     recommendations concerning the format, content, and review
of PAS-related submissions; and
     updates to the final guidance entitled ``Procedures for
Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by PMA Order'' dated June 2009,
including:
    [cir] Recommendations to help facilitate FDA's review of a PAS
protocol in a timely manner;
    [cir] recommendations for study timelines including enrollment
milestones and study completion;
    [cir] revised definitions to PAS status categories that we believe
better reflect progress of the PAS; and
    [cir] revised FDA review time goals for PAS-related submissions.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Procedures
for Handling Post-Approval Studies Imposed by Premarket Approval
Application Order.'' It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search
capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance
documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to
download an electronic copy of ``Procedures for Handling Post-Approval
Studies Imposed by Premarket Approval Application Order'' may send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 19043 and complete
title to identify the guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by
OMB as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
          21 CFR part                     Topic                 No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
814, subparts A through E......  Premarket approval.....       0910-0231
814, subpart H.................  Humanitarian use              0910-0332
                                  devices; Humanitarian
                                  device exemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 21, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11216 Filed 5-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21684-21687]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07746]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94617; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

April 6, 2022.
    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 April 1, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equity'') to modify the criteria of
Growth Tier 4. The Exchange proposes to implement this change effective
April 1, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\3\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays rebates to members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove liquidity. For orders
in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00009 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of 0.30% of the total dollar value for orders that remove
liquidity. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides Members
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where
certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides
an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (March 25, 2022), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification to Growth Volume Tier 4
    Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers
various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers
four Growth Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members'
qualifying orders yielding fee codes B,\4\ V,\5\ Y,\6\ 3 \7\ or 4,\8\
where a Member reaches certain add volume-based criteria, including
``growing'' its volume over a certain baseline month. Currently, Growth
Tier 4 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0034 per share to MPIDs that
(1) add a Step-Up ADAV \9\ from October 2021 equal to or greater than
0.10% of the TCV \10\ or MPIDs that add a Step-Up ADAV from October
2021 equal to or greater than 15 million shares; and (2) MPIDs that add
an ADV \11\ equal to or greater than 0.30% of TCV or MPIDs that add an
ADV equal to or greater than 30 million shares. The Exchange now
proposes to amend the criteria of Growth Tier 4 to provide the rebate
to MPIDs that (1) add a Step-Up ADAV from October 2021 equal to or
greater than 0.10% of the TCV or MPIDs that add a Step-Up ADAV from
October 2021 equal to or greater than 16 million shares (instead of 15
million shares); and (2) and MPID that adds an ADV equal to or greater
than 0.30% of TCV or MPIDs that add an ADV equal to order great than 30
million shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape B).
    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape A).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``Y'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape C).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``3'' are orders adding liquidity
to EXGX in the pre and post market (Tapes A or C).
    \8\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``4'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX in the pre and post market (Tape B).
    \9\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV. ``ADAV'' means average daily volume
calculated as the number of shares added per day. ADAV is calculated
on a monthly basis.
    \10\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \11\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the objectives of Section 6 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933
[sic] (the ``Act''),\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its Members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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,
and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described above,
the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to
be insufficient. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would
enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed change to Growth Tier 4 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory. The Exchange's proposal to amend Growth Tier 4 is
reasonable because the tier will continue to be available to all MPIDs
and will continue to provide MPIDs an opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate. The Exchange notes that relative volume-based
incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,\15\
including the Exchange,\16\ and are reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and (ii)
associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels or
liquidity provision and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess similar
fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that the existing rebate under Growth Tier 4
continues to be commensurate with the existing and proposed criteria.
That is, the rebate reasonably reflects the difficulty in achieving the
corresponding criteria as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
    \16\ See EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the change to Growth Tier 4 will benefit
all market participants by incentivizing continuous liquidity and,
thus, deeper more liquid markets as well as increased execution
opportunities. Particularly, the proposal is designed to incentivize
liquidity, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market
and provide even more execution opportunities for active market
participants at improved prices. This overall increase in activity
deepens the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings,
supports the quality of price discovery, promotes market transparency
and improves market quality, for all investors.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment to Growth
Tier 4 represents an equitable allocation of rebates and is not
unfairly discriminatory because all MPIDs are eligible for the tier and
would have the opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and would
receive the proposed rebate if such criteria is met. Without having a
view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange
has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
definitely result in any MPIDs qualifying for the proposed tiers. While
the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed
tier will impact MPID activity, the Exchange anticipates that at least
one MPID will be able to compete for and reach the proposed criteria in
Growth Tier 4. The Exchange also notes all MPIDs are eligible to
satisfy the revised criteria of Growth Tier 4 and further believes the
proposed change will provide a reasonable means to encourage future
overall growth in Members' order flow to the Exchange by offering an
enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. Moreover the proposed criteria
will not adversely impact any MPID or Member's ability to qualify for
other reduced fee or enhanced rebate tiers. Should any MPID not meet
the proposed criteria under Growth Tier 4, the MPID will merely not
receive the corresponding enhanced rebate.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Exchange in only one of 16 equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-
taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar rates and
tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules
of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain
volume thresholds.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution
opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change to Growth Tier 4 will apply to all Members equally in that all
Members are eligible for the tier, have a reasonable opportunity to
meet the tier's criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their
qualifying orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed changes burdens competition, but rather, enhances
competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX
by amending an existing pricing incentive in order to attract order
flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on
the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for
market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall
order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits
all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 17% of the market share.\17\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \18\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is

`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . .''.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra note 3.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-022 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-022. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-022, and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07746 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30228]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1748-000]

Milan Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Milan Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 9, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12707 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P