----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/17/2010 03:31 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Crockett, Steven"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>RobertJ
Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael
|
  |Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Grahame, Thomas"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Wolfgang, Robert"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lombard, Mark"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     |
  |"Imboden, Andy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Droggitis, Spiros"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |02/05/2010 01:25 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |NRC standards on maintenance and testing
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

You've asked for some description of the NRC's maintenance and testing
standards on emergency diesels that fall within its jurisdiction. Below, I
briefly describe the program and provide links to the key documents.
There may be a further comment later today, or perhaps further documentation,
but I hope that what's below contains the core of our response. At least it
will move the discussion along.

Let me first make a general comment about our stance towards EPA's draft final
rule. As we did in the case of EPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures rule, we're taking no position on whether the rule should
apply to the diesels in the NRC's jurisdiction -- and EPA tells us that's not
really an open question anyway. We're not fans of having two regulators
overseeing the same machine for different purposes, but we recognize EPA's
Clean Air Act jurisdiction here, and this is not a case like the cases
involvling radionuclide emissions, where we and EPA were seeking to regulate
the same thing for the same purpose (e.g., Yucca Mountain, decommissioning,
radionuclide emissions to air). We're aiming mainly at providing information
about our program, and at understanding, as best we can in the short time
allotted, whether there's anything in the rule's approach to maintenance and
testing that might raise a nuclear safety concern. These diesels are critical
to ensuring safety in emergency conditions; so of course the maintence and
testing of these diesels is critically important to us. And that's so whether
we're talking existing diesels or new ones; the fact that the rule imposes no
retrofits on existing emergency diesels doesn't eliminate the possibility that
the rule might raise a nuclear safety concern.

However, to the extent that we understand this complicated rule -- necessarily
complicated because of its great scope -- we don't think it raises a nuclear
safety issue, at least not as a general matter, though details matter (and we
note one below). Our principal standard on maintenance, 10 CFR 50.65, is a
"performance-based" rule, and so leaves scope for variation in maintenance
practices. Annually changing the very large quantity of oil in a huge diesel
engine designed to provide emergency power to an operating nuclear power
reactor is no light matter, but, in and of itself, it needn't pose an
unacceptable risk.
Similarly, we have testing guidance (listed below), but EPA's rule appears to
leave room for its application.

What can matter though are detailed prescriptions. The reliability of EDGs can
be one of the main factors affecting the risk of core damage from a station
blackout. Changes of any kind in a safety-related system or component –
including imposition of prescriptive maintenance procedures or maintenance
schedules – could impact the prevention or mitigation of the consequences of
accidents at nuclear reactors, because changes to the established maintenance
procedures for an emergency diesel could impact its reliability or
availability.  Excessive maintenance could negatively impact the availability
of the system or component, and excessive testing could negatively impact its
reliability. For these reasons, we're concerned about one aspect of EPA’s
prescriptive schedule for performing management practice
requirements: EPA appears to allow delays in maintenance only when the diesel
is operating in response to an ongoing emergency. See page 163, footnote 4.
The NRC’s approach, on the other hand, is designed to minimize overall risk.
10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) states, “before performing maintenance activities … the
licensee shall assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from the
proposed maintenance activities.” This applies to emergency diesels, with the
result that the NRC rule might allow a delay in maintenance when the EPA rule
would not.
Could the footnote be expanded somehow to incorporate a judgment about overall
risk? Could it say, for example, the following? "If an emergency engine is
operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut down the engine
in order to perform the management practice requirements on the schedule
required in the final rule, or if shutting the engine down would otherwise
pose an unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the management
practice can be delayed until the emergency is over.  The management practice
should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended, or
the unacceptable risk has abated."

We're less concerned about the rule's testing requirements, even though we've
taken great care in the area of testing (see below), in order to avoid the
extremes of too much testing (and therefore unnecessary wear and tear), or too
little (and therefore inadequate demonstration of reliability). We're less
concerned about the rule's requirements here, because they appear to leave
room for the appropriate application of other federal, state, or local
standards (see pages 148-49), and that would include the NRC's important
guidance on the subject.

I hope that, in the future, when EPA is engaged in rulemaking that might apply
to the NRC's licensee, the two agencies will be able to consult earlier than
they were able to this time. Earlier consultation proved useful in the cases
of EPA rulemaking on water intake structures and underground diesel fuel
tanks. We keep an eye out for EPA rulemakings, but we sometimes miss them. I
hope that the little consultation we've had these past few days has been
useful to both agencies, and I hope too that we'll continue the consultation
if unexpected issues should arise in the course of implementing the rule.

NRC DOCUMENTS ON MAINTENANCE AND TESTING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS AT
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

- 10 CFR 50.63, Loss of all alternating current power.

- 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
at nuclear power plants.

- Regulatory Guide 1.160, “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at
Nuclear Power Plants”, esp. pages 4-5.
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&
ID=003970364

- Regulatory Guide 1.155, "Station Blackout."
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&
ID=003957121

- Regulatory Guide 1.9, "Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel
Generators in Nuclear Power Plants."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-
reactors/active/01-009/01-009.pdf

- American Society of Mechanical Engineers document ASME OM-S/G 2007,
"Standards and Guides for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants,"
is also in use at nuclear power plants. Part 16 of this document applies to
emergency diesel generators. This document has not been formally approved by
the NRC, but NRC staff participated in its development.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16534-16538]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2010-0132; FRL-9285-7]

Hazardous Waste Management System Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, also the Agency or
we in this preamble) today is granting a petition submitted by Babcock
& Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group, Inc., the current owner, and to BWX
Technologies, Inc., as predecessor in interest to the current owner,
identified collectively hereafter in this preamble as ``B&W NOG,'' to
exclude (or delist) on a one-time basis from the lists of hazardous
waste, a certain solid waste generated at its Mt. Athos facility near
Lynchburg, Virginia.
    After careful analysis, we have concluded that the petitioned waste
is

not hazardous waste. This exclusion applies to 148 cubic yards of
sludge currently deposited in two on-site surface impoundments
designated as Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) 1 and 2. Accordingly, this
final rule conditionally excludes this volume of the petitioned waste
from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R03-RCRA-2010-0132. The public docket for this final rule is
located at the Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Land and
Chemicals Division, Office of Technical and Administrative Support,
Mail Code: 3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. The
docket is available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. You may copy material from any
regulatory docket at a cost of $0.15 per page. EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. You should make an appointment
with the office at least 24 hours in advance. Docket materials are also
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further technical information
concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket for the
B&W NOG facility petition, contact David M. Friedman, Environmental
Protection Agency Region III, Land and Chemicals Division, Office of
Technical and Administrative Support, Mail Code: 3LC10, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. Overview Information
II. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow a hazardous waste generator to
petition for a delisting of its waste?
    C. What information must the petitioner supply?
III. B&W NOG's Delisting Petition
    A. What waste is the subject of B&W NOG's petition?
    B. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Decision
    A. Why is EPA approving this petition?
    B. What limitations are associated with this exclusion?
    C. When is the final rule effective?
    D. How does this action affect States?
V. Public Comment Received on the Proposed Exclusion
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. Comment and Response From EPA
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

    On October 7, 2010, we proposed to grant a petition submitted by
B&W NOG to exclude (or delist) from the definition of hazardous waste
on a one-time basis, wastewater treatment sludge generated at its Mt.
Athos facility near Lynchburg, VA, and currently deposited in two on-
site surface impoundments designated as FEPs 1 and 2. Today we are
finalizing the decision to grant a conditional exclusion as described
in the October 7, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 62040).

II. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized State to exclude waste from the list of hazardous wastes on
a site-specific basis. A facility petitions EPA because it believes the
waste should not be considered hazardous under RCRA.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste
generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria
for which the waste was listed. The criteria which EPA uses to evaluate
a waste for listing are found in 40 CFR 261.11. An explanation of how
these criteria apply to a waste is contained in the background document
for that particular listed waste.
    In addition to the criteria that we used when we originally listed
the waste, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics found in 40 CFR 261,
Subpart C, and must present sufficient information for EPA to decide
whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant
retaining it as a hazardous waste as required by Section 3001(f) of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921(f)) and 40 CFR 260.22(a).
    A petitioner who is granted a delisting by EPA or an authorized
State remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that the delisted waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics and
must ensure that the waste meets the conditions set forth.

B. What regulations allow a hazardous waste generator to petition for a
delisting of its waste?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 262.22, a generator may petition EPA to
remove its waste from hazardous waste regulation by excluding it from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D.
Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268 and 273. 40 CFR 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.

C. What information must the petitioner supply?

    A petitioner must provide sufficient information to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, EPA must determine that the waste is not hazardous for any
other reason.

III. B&W NOG's Delisting Petition

A. What waste is the subject of B&W NOG's petition?

    On February 21, 2003, B&W NOG (then known as BWX Technologies,
Inc.) petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste
contained in 40 CFR 261.31 on a one-time basis, the sludge which was
deposited in FEPs 1 and 2 because it believed that the petitioned waste
did not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed and
because there were no additional constituents or factors that would
cause the waste to be hazardous. This sludge was derived in part from
the treatment of wastewater in the pickle acid treatment system and,
therefore, was designated as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 (wastewater
treatment sludge from electroplating operations). The volume of sludge
contained in each FEP at that time was determined to be 6,600 cubic
yards, for a combined sludge volume of 13,200 cubic yards.
    In addition, although the routing of treated wastewaters into the
FEPs has changed during the operating history of these units, at some
point they have both received treated wastewater from the low level
radioactive treatment system. Because of this, the sludge in these
units is classified as a ``mixed waste'' under RCRA. A mixed waste is
defined as a waste that contains both a radioactive component subject
to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, and a hazardous component
subject to RCRA.
    On September 3, 2008, B&W NOG notified EPA that it had successfully
completed a sludge removal project at FEPs 1 and 2. Sludge was removed
from these units and disposed of at a mixed

waste disposal facility permitted under the authority of both RCRA and
the Atomic Energy Act. B&W NOG conservatively estimated that of the
13,200 cubic yards of sludge in both units, only 148 cubic yards (less
than 2 percent of the original volume) remained. In this notification,
B&W NOG requested that its petition be amended to reflect the reduced
volume, and that the Agency proceed with the delisting request based on
the new volume.
    For a detailed description of how the waste was generated, please
refer to the October 7, 2010 proposed rule.

B. What information was submitted in support of this petition?

    B&W NOG submitted detailed descriptions of the processes generating
the waste. B&W NOG also asserted that the waste does not meet the
criteria for which the F006 waste was listed and that there are no
other factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
    To support its assertion that the waste is not hazardous, B&W NOG
implemented a comprehensive strategy for evaluating the sludge in the
FEPs consisting of a two-phase sampling and analysis plan. Details of
this plan and the analytical results from representative samples of the
sludge are contained in the October 7, 2010 proposed rule.

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Decision

A. Why is EPA approving this petition?

    Today EPA is finalizing a one-time exclusion for the 148 cubic
yards of wastewater treatment sludge generated at the B&W NOG's Mt.
Athos facility and currently deposited in two on-site surface
impoundments designated as FEPs 1 and 2. B&W NOG petitioned EPA to
exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment sludge because B&W NOG
believed that the petitioned waste did not meet the criteria for which
it was listed and that the waste was not hazardous for any other
reason. Review of this petition included consideration of the original
listing criteria, as well as factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed as
required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to
RCRA. See, Section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(a)(1) and (2).
    On October 7, 2010, we proposed to conditionally exclude the
remaining 148 cubic yards of wastewater treatment sludge currently
deposited in FEPs 1 and 2 at the B&W NOG's Mt. Athos facility from the
list of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.31, and requested public comment
on the proposed rule. For reasons stated in both the proposed rule and
in today's preamble, we determined that B&W NOG's wastewater treatment
sludge should be excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste.

B. What limitations are associated with this exclusion?

    This exclusion applies only to the estimated 148 cubic yards of
sludge currently deposited in FEPs 1 and 2 at the B&W NOG's Mt. Athos
facility.
    B&W NOG states in its petition that this sludge contains low levels
of radioactivity, and that it is, and if delisted by EPA will remain
subject to, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. Although
the sludge currently resides in the FEPs and will continue to do so for
many years, the FEPs will be subject to NRC decommissioning rules when
they are taken out of service. At that time, any sludge remaining in
the units will have to be removed and disposed of in a facility
licensed to accept low-level radioactive waste.
    In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, when a
decision is made to dispose of all or of part of the sludge off-site,
we are requiring that B&W NOG provide a one-time notification to any
State regulatory agency to which or through which the delisted waste
will be transported for disposal. B&W NOG will be required to provide
this notification at least 60 calendar days prior to commencing these
activities.

C. When is the final rule effective?

    This rule is effective March 24, 2011. HSWA amended Section 3010 of
RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into
compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather
than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating
hazardous wastes. For these same reasons, this rule can and will become
effective immediately upon publication pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

D. How does this action affect States?

    Today's exclusion is being issued under the Federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in States
that have received EPA authorization to make their own delisting
decisions. Also, this exclusion may not be effective in States having a
dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own
requirements.
    We allow States to impose their own regulatory requirements that
are more stringent than EPA's under section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State until the
State approves the exclusion through a separate State administrative
action. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal and State
programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to
contact the applicable State regulatory authorities or agencies to
establish the status of their waste under that State's hazardous waste
program.
    We have also authorized some States to administer a delisting
program in place of the Federal program; that is, to make delisting
decisions pursuant to EPA authorized State regulations. Therefore, the
petition for an exclusion that EPA is granting today does not
necessarily apply within those authorized States. If B&W NOG transports
the petitioned waste to, or manages the waste in, any State which has
received delisting authorization from EPA, B&W NOG must obtain
delisting approval from that State before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that State.

V. Public Comment Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

    We received public comments on the October 7, 2010 proposed
exclusion from counsel for B&W NOG, on behalf of the petitioner.

B. Comment and Response From EPA

    Comment: The commenter requested a clarification of the regulatory
status of the minimal amounts of newly generated suspended solids that
are not captured by the dewatering process for the currently generated
wastewater treatment sludge, which is generated for the purpose of
disposal as filter cake solids. As explained in the October 7, 2010
proposed exclusion, on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2337), EPA granted an
exclusion to B&W NOG (known then as BWX Technologies, Inc.), for its
currently generated F006 wastewater treatment sludge (i.e., the filter
cake solids). However, suspended solids carry over in the effluent from
the sludge dewatering process and settle out in the FEPs as a portion
of the sludge accumulation in these units (currently only in FEP 2).

    The commenter stated that it was not clear whether the ``currently
deposited'' wording in the proposal refers to the sludge now residing
in the FEPs, or the current sludge plus the minimal future
accumulations contributed by the suspended solids carryover. The
commenter stated that there is no practical difference between the
filter cake solids, the FEP sludge that is the subject of today's
exclusion, and the suspended solids carryover. The commenter further
stated that the filter cake solids and the suspended solids carryover
are physically (except for water content) and chemically identical,
since they are both the precipitated electroplating sludge either (1)
captured on the filter media and subject to the January 14, 2000
exclusion or (2) escaping that process, carried over in the effluent
from the filtering process, subsequently settling out in FEP 2 and
similarly subject to the earlier delisting.
    Response: As noted in the October 7, 2010, proposed exclusion, on
January 14, 2000, EPA finalized a delisting for the current production
of filter cake solids from the pickle acid wastewater system. The
suspended solids carryover that is the subject of this commenter's
request for clarification are uncaptured portions of the newly
generated filter cake which escape the dewatering process. EPA agrees
with the commenter that these suspended solids are identical in all
respects to the filter cake except for water content.
    Recognizing that no filtration process is 100 percent efficient, it
was EPA's intention that this minimal amount of newly generated
suspended solids carryover described above be included as part of the
January 14, 2000 exclusion for the currently generated sludge.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
    Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and
children, to calculate the cumulative carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risk. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule
does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is
amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.

Appendix IX of Part 261--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 is amended to add the following
waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

           Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                  Address         Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear        Lynchburg,         Wastewater treatment
 Operations Group, Inc.,         Virginia.          sludge from
 current owner, and BWX                             electroplating
 Technologies, Inc.,                                operations
 predecessor in interest to                         (Hazardous Waste
 the current owner, identified                      Number F006)
 collectively hereafter as                          generated at the Mt.
 ``B&W NOG''.                                       Athos facility near
                                                    Lynchburg, VA and
                                                    currently deposited
                                                    in two on-site
                                                    surface impoundments
                                                    designated as Final
                                                    Effluent Ponds
                                                    (FEPs) 1 and 2. This
                                                    is a one-time
                                                    exclusion for 148
                                                    cubic yards of
                                                    sludge and is
                                                    effective after
                                                    March 24, 2011.
                                                   (1) Reopener
                                                    language.
                                                   (A) If B&W NOG
                                                    discovers that any
                                                    condition or
                                                    assumption related
                                                    to the
                                                    characterization of
                                                    the excluded waste
                                                    which was used in
                                                    the evaluation of
                                                    the petition or that
                                                    was predicted
                                                    through modeling is
                                                    not as reported in
                                                    the petition, then
                                                    B&W NOG must report
                                                    any information
                                                    relevant to that
                                                    condition or
                                                    assumption, in
                                                    writing, to the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator and
                                                    the Virginia
                                                    Department of
                                                    Environmental
                                                    Quality within 10
                                                    calendar days of
                                                    discovering that
                                                    information
                                                   (B) Upon receiving
                                                    information
                                                    described in
                                                    paragraph (a) of
                                                    this section,
                                                    regardless of its
                                                    source, the Regional
                                                    Administrator will
                                                    determine whether
                                                    the reported
                                                    condition requires
                                                    further action.
                                                    Further action may
                                                    include repealing
                                                    the exclusion,
                                                    modifying the
                                                    exclusion, or other
                                                    appropriate action
                                                    deemed necessary to
                                                    protect human health
                                                    or the environment
                                                   (2) Notification
                                                    Requirements
                                                   In the event that the
                                                    delisted waste is
                                                    transported off-site
                                                    for disposal, B&W
                                                    NOG must provide a
                                                    one[dash]time
                                                    written notification
                                                    to any State
                                                    Regulatory Agency to
                                                    which or through
                                                    which the delisted
                                                    waste described
                                                    above will be
                                                    transported at least
                                                    60 calendar days
                                                    prior to the
                                                    commencement of such
                                                    activities. Failure
                                                    to provide such
                                                    notification will be
                                                    deemed to be a
                                                    violation of this
                                                    exclusion and may
                                                    result in revocation
                                                    of the decision and
                                                    other enforcement
                                                    action

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-6892 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18620-18621]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08762]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10634; 34-85721; File No. 265-32]

Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital
Formation Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 40 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as added by the SEC Small Business
Advocate Act of 2016, is providing notice that it will hold a public
meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, May 6, 2019, from 1:00 p.m.
to 3:30 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Written statements
should be received on or before May 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC. The meeting will be webcast on the
Commission's website at www.sec.gov. Written statements may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-32 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

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

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-32. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the SEC's website at
www.sec.gov.

    Statements also 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. All statements received will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special
Counsel, Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons needing special accommodations because of a disability should
notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The agenda for the meeting includes
matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging
companies under the federal securities laws.

    Dated: April 25, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08762 Filed 4-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17532-17533]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06998]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77434; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule 13 to Expand the Availability of Self-Trade Prevention
Modifiers to Non-Algorithmically Entered Floor Broker Interest

March 23, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 15, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 to expand the availability
of self-trade prevention (``STP'') modifiers to non-algorithmically
entered Floor broker interest. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 to expand the availability
of STP modifiers to non-algorithmically entered e-Quotes, pegging e-
Quotes, and g-Quotes.
    STP modifiers are designed to prevent two orders from the same
market participant identifier (``MPID'') assigned to a member
organization from executing against each other. Use of the STP
modifiers is optional and is not automatically implemented by the
Exchange. Rather, a member organization can choose to add a STP
modifier on eligible orders. The STP modifier on the incoming order
determines the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers
and whether the incoming or the resting order would cancel. Both the
buy and the sell order must include an STP modifier in order to prevent
a trade from occurring and to effect a cancel instruction.\3\
Currently, under Rule 13(f)(3)(B), STP modifiers are available for
Limit Orders and Market Orders entered by off-Floor participants, and
for e-Quotes, pegging e-Quotes, and g-Quotes sent to the matching
engine by an algorithm on behalf of a Floor broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 13(f)(3)(A); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69102 (Mar. 11, 2013), 78 FR 16561 (Mar. 15, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-
17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange amended Rule 13 to add STP modifiers in 2013.\4\ At
the time, the supporting technology was not compatible with Floor
broker systems and the Exchange chose to deploy STP modifiers for other
market participants while it performed the technical modifications
required for the use of STP modifiers for Floor brokers.\5\ The
Exchange later made STP modifiers available for algorithms used by
Floor brokers to route interest to the Exchange's matching engine, but
the technology supporting STP modifiers was still incompatible with all
Floor broker systems.\6\ Now that the technology to extend STP
modifiers to all Floor broker systems is available, the Exchange
proposes to delete the clause ``sent to the matching engine by an
algorithm on behalf of a Floor broker'' in Rule 13 to make STP
modifiers available for eQuotes, pegging e-Quotes, and g-Quotes without
limitation. No other changes are proposed to Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69102, 78 FR at
16561.
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69502 (May 2, 2013),
78 FR 26818 (May 8, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with this rule
proposal, the Exchange will announce the implementation date in a
Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes that extending STP modifiers to non-
algorithmically entered Floor broker interest would provide Floor
brokers with an additional opportunity to prevent unintended executions
by Floor broker customers with themselves or the potential for ``wash
sales'' that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in
today's high-speed marketplace, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market. The Exchange notes
that STP modifiers would not alleviate, or otherwise exempt, broker-
dealers from their best execution obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange believes that
the proposal would provide Floor brokers with an additional opportunity
to prevent unintended self-trades from occurring. The Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues offering
similar functionality. Many competing venues offer similar
functionality to market participants. To this end, the Exchange is
proposing a market enhancement to provide greater protections from
inadvertent executions, and encourage market participants to trade on
the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-23 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-NYSE-2016-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-23, and should be
submitted on or before April 19, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06998 Filed 3-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64525-64526]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-496, OMB Control No. 3235-0554]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 6a-4, Form
1-N

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 6a-4 and Form 1-N, summarized below.
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. The
Code of Federal Regulation citation to this collection of information
is 17 CFR 240.6a-4 and 17 CFR 249.10 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Act'').
    Section 6 of the Act \1\ sets out a framework for the registration
and regulation of national securities exchanges. Under the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a futures market may trade security
futures products by registering as a national securities exchange. Rule
6a-4 \2\ sets forth these registration procedures and directs futures
markets to submit a notice registration on Form 1-N.\3\ Form 1-N calls
for information regarding how the futures market operates, its rules
and procedures, corporate governance, its criteria for membership, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and the security futures products it
intends to trade. Rule 6a-4 also requires entities that have submitted
an initial Form 1-N to file: (1) amendments to Form 1-N in the event of
material changes to the information provided in the initial Form 1-N;
(2) periodic updates of certain information provided in the initial
Form 1-N; (3) certain information that is provided to the futures
market's members; and (4) a monthly report summarizing the futures
market's trading of security futures products. The information required
to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 6a-4 is designed to
enable the Commission to carry out its statutorily mandated oversight
functions and to ensure that registered and exempt exchanges continue
to be in compliance with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.6a-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 249.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondents to the collection of information are futures
markets.
    The Commission estimates that the total annual burden for all
respondents to provide periodic amendments to keep the Form 1-N
accurate and up to date as required under Rule 6a-4(b)(1) would be 30
hours (15 hours/respondent per year x 2 respondents) and $200 of
miscellaneous clerical expenses. The Commission estimates that the
total annual burden for all respondents to provide annual amendments
under Rule 6a-4(b)(3) would be 30 hours (15 hours/respondent/year x 2
respondents) and $200 of miscellaneous clerical expenses. The
Commission estimates that the total annual burden for all respondents
to provide three-year amendments under Rule 6a-4(b)(4) would be 14
hours (20 hours/respondent x 0.67 respondents per year) and $88 in
miscellaneous clerical expenses. The Commission estimates that the
total annual burden for the filing of the supplemental information and
the monthly reports required under Rule 6a-4(c) would be 12 hours (6
hours/respondent per year x 2 respondents) and $120 of miscellaneous
clerical expenses. Thus, the Commission estimates the total annual
burden for complying with Rule 6a-4 is 86 hours and $608 in
miscellaneous clerical expenses.
    Compliance with Rule 6a-4 is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 6a-4 shall not be kept confidential; the information
collected is public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing by December 27, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: October 19, 2022.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23101 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P