[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28867-28868]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-285-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 27, 2012, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky
42304, filed in Docket No. CP12-285-000 an application pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, for authorization
to expand the existing certificated boundary and buffer zone by 160
acres at Southern Star's existing McLouth Gas Storage Field in
Jefferson and Leavenworth Counties, Kansas, all as more fully set forth
in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for
public inspection.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to
David N. Roberts, Staff Analyst, Regulatory Affairs, Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42304, or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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>.
    Comment Date: May 31, 2012.

    Dated: May 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11833 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                    AGENDA
              Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
                       Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting
                               June 12-14, 2012

Scientific Issues Associated with Problem Formulation for the Reassessment of Ecological Risks from the Use of Atrazine

Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0230			OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

                  Please note that all times are approximate
                      (See note at the end of the Agenda)

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:15 A.M.	Opening Remarks  -  Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M. 	Overview of the Conceptual Model  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

	Dana Spatz, M.S., Branch Chief, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:45 A.M.	The Evaluation of Amphibian Toxicity Data  -  Amy Blankinship, M.S., Chemist, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	The Method for Determining the Level of Concern for Aquatic Plant Communities  -  Frank Farruggia, Ph.D., Biologist, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

11:30 A.M.	Attributes of the PATI and CASM Models  -  Russell Erickson, Ph.D., Research Chemist, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, EPA

12:15 P.M.		Lunch

1:15 P.M. 	Method for Comparing Monitoring Data to the Aquatic Plant Community Level of Concern  -  James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

2:15 P.M.	Public Comments

3:15 P.M.	Break

3:30 P.M.	Public Comments, continued

5:30 P.M.	Adjournment

Wednesday, June 13, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day's Discussion  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Public Comments, cont'd

10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	Introduction to the Charge Questions:  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:55 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge Questions

            Topic A: Evaluation of the Data on Amphibians

There are an increasing number of literature studies examining whether there is a causal relationship between atrazine exposure and abnormal sexual development, metamorphosis and growth, and/or immune response in amphibians (Chapter II of the White Paper). In order to determine the degree to which these studies are appropriate for incorporation into risk assessment, EPA evaluated the data within the context of considering the nature and degree of the uncertainties in each study.
   1. Is the SAP aware of any other laboratory-based or field-based studies not included in this White Paper that should be considered?

   2. EPA identified test design elements that could potentially confound the ability of a study to discern a causal relationship between exposure to atrazine and an effect on amphibians (Section 7.2). Based on consideration of those test design elements, EPA then evaluated the available amphibian data and assigned a classification (e.g., Quantitative, Qualitative (high, medium, and low level of confidence), and Invalid) to each study indicating EPA's confidence in the study's conclusions (Section 7.3 and Appendix C). The confidence in each study was based on an evaluation of the identified test design elements and resulting level of uncertainty in determining a direct causal relationship between atrazine and potential effects to amphibians.

         a. Please comment on the completeness of EPA's list of pertinent test design elements. Also, please comment on the degree to which these test design elements, singularly or in combination, would be expected to contribute towards confounding the test results.

         b. Please comment on EPA's conclusions about the level of confidence placed on each study's results.

12:30 P.M.	Lunch

1:30P.M.	Topic A: Evaluation of the Data on Amphibians, cont'd
   3. After evaluating all the available amphibian studies, one study was found to have accounted for all the identified test design elements (Question #2) and determined to be suitable for quantitative use in risk assessment for the endpoints of survival, growth and development (Section 7.3 and Appendix C). This study was required by an EPA Data Call-In (DCI) Notice following the recommendations from the 2003 SAP on atrazine and amphibians. The resulting study examined the effects of atrazine on Xenopus laevis at concentrations of 0.01 to 100 ug/L at two different laboratories. Based on the 2007 SAP, the conclusion was, and there was agreement by the Panel, that the data from this study were robust and sufficient to conclude that exposure to atrazine at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to
100 ug/L had no effect on X. laevis development (which included survival, growth, metamorphosis and sexual development).

         a. Please comment on whether any new information has become available that leads to a different conclusion from the one which EPA reached in that the results of the DCI study were adequate to evaluate potential effects of atrazine exposure to amphibians.

         b. If such information is now available, please comment on how a threshold determination (a concentration that is expected to cause no effect) may be accomplished using the identified studies.

   4. After evaluation of the available amphibian toxicity data, EPA concluded that the DCI study mentioned in Question #3 was appropriate for quantitative use in a risk assessment for survival, growth and development. While the 2007 SAP Panel agreed that atrazine appeared to have no effect on X. laevis development at atrazine concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 ug/L, they expressed concerns about the suitability of X. laevis as a surrogate for native species. Review of the available toxicity data utilizing indigenous species suggests that suitable protocols, including adequate husbandry methods in particular, that would enable EPA to quantify a toxicity endpoint representative of a clear and consistent response from atrazine for native species, may not exist. Please comment on whether there are suitable methods for testing native amphibians with particular regard to husbandry and laboratory culturing conditions, consistent with the design elements recommended by the 2003 SAP.

3:15 P.M. 	Break

3:30 P.M.	Topic A: Evaluation of the Data on Amphibians, cont'd

   5. A number of studies report the potential for atrazine to modify immune function and infection susceptibility in amphibians (Appendix C). EPA believes the research on these different hypotheses does not provide sufficient data to establish causal linkages among different levels of biological organization to result in adverse effects. Therefore, EPA concluded that a mode of action or adverse outcome pathway leading to effects on amphibian survival, growth or development cannot be established at this time.

         a. Please comment on whether the data in the existing database reasonably supports the hypotheses, or demonstrates that atrazine affects immune function and/or infection susceptibility leading to adverse effects on survival, growth or development; i.e., are there sufficient data to establish an adverse outcome pathway for atrazine effects on immune function? Please provide a rationale for the Panel's position and discuss the associated strengths and weakness with the data supporting the rationale.

         b. If the Panel concludes that the existing data are sufficient to formulate hypotheses that atrazine adversely affects immune function and infection susceptibility, but are not sufficient to test the hypotheses (refute or confirm), then please comment on specific study protocols that can be used to test these hypotheses with sufficient rigor to identify effects that can be directly and quantitatively attributed to adverse impacts on amphibian reproduction, growth and/or survival.

4:15 P.M.	Topic B: The Method for Determining the Atrazine Level of Concern for Aquatic Plant Communities

Chapter I, Section 6.14 and Appendix D discuss the mesocosm and microcosm (cosm) study selection criteria for determining acceptability in evaluating the impact of atrazine exposure on the structure, function and productivity of aquatic plant communities. Chapter I, Section 6.14, and Appendix G(f) also provide summaries of the source of the natural communities used to populate the acceptable cosm studies, as well as details on species composition of the cosms. The acceptable cosm studies were used in the establishment of an Aquatic Plant Community Concentration Equivalent Level of Concern (CE-LOC) for atrazine. EPA has refined its method for determining an CE-LOC for atrazine based on the recommendations provided by SAPs in 2003, 2007, and 2009 (Chapter IV, Sections 13 & 14; for a summary of changes since 2003 please refer to Table 21). This methodology will be used for a national-scale assessment of atrazine concentrations in freshwater and estuarine/marine ecosystems in the upcoming registration review. The following questions concern the composition and biological relevance of the cosm studies, and the method, assumptions and uncertainties in determining a CE-LOC for atrazine.

   6. The cosms were comprised of natural communities of periphyton/phytoplankton; in some cases, vascular plants, invertebrates and vertebrates present in those communities were included in the study (Chapter I, Section 6.1.4). These sources were generally described as streams, lakes, reservoirs, and springs, and are considered to be representative of the structure and function of aquatic plant communities in such water bodies. Given the diversity of sources and the described communities, please comment on the extent to which these cosm studies taken together provide useful and reasonable physical models of the natural aquatic plant communities exposed to atrazine in the U.S.

   7. The Aquatic Plant Community CE-LOC methodology for atrazine is a four stage process that uses single-species plant toxicity data and cosm studies to discern atrazine concentrations and exposure durations that may cause adverse effects on aquatic plant communities. As a result, a CE-LOC for atrazine is developed which, together with monitoring data, can be used to identify watersheds where concentrations may result in adverse effects to aquatic plant community structure, function, and/or productivity. Please comment on the methodology EPA has used to derive the atrazine CE-LOC for aquatic plant communities, and in particular on EPA's characterization of the uncertainties and assumptions in this methodology (Chapter IV, Sections 13 & 14).
5:30 P.M.  	Adjournment

Thursday, June 14, 2012

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

9:10 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day's Discussion  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:20 A.M.	Topic B: The Method for Determining the Atrazine Level of Concern for Aquatic Plant Communities, cont'd
   8. The 2009 SAP recommended using an effects index or concentration metric, rather than categorical LOC thresholds in order to take advantage of data from Syngenta's Atrazine Ecological Exposure Monitoring Program (AEEMP). At that time the LOC threshold for atrazine effects to plant communities was established at 10 ug/L for a 60-day rolling average. The current analysis using the Plant Assemblage Toxicity Index (PATI) indicates the CE-LOC can range from 4 to 7 ug/L (Chapter IV, Section 14.3 & 14.4). Please comment on this CE-LOC and whether it reasonably represents a range below which permanent or irreversible change in aquatic plant community structure, function, and/or productivity due to atrazine exposure would not be expected.

   9. Based on previous analyses of the available ecotoxicity data, EPA concluded for atrazine that the level of concern for effects on aquatic plant communities (CE-LOC) was lower than the atrazine concentrations observed to produce significant direct or indirect effects on invertebrates, fish and amphibians. Given the current analysis of the ecotoxicity data (Chapter I, Section 6) and the Aquatic Plant Community LOC methodology, EPA continues to believe the original conclusion still holds true. Please comment on how well the available database supports EPA's conclusion that the CE-LOC is lower than exposures that result in significant effects on the growth, survival and reproduction of aquatic animals.
10:30 A.M.	Break

10:45 A.M.	Topic C: Method for Comparing Monitoring Data to the Aquatic Plant Community LOC for Atrazine
Chapter V and Section 16 address the issue of identifying surface water bodies with potential levels of atrazine that exceed the aquatic plant community levels of concern (CE-LOC). EPA evaluated several statistical methods (kriging, stochastic simulation, covariate analysis, and bias factors) to address uncertainties associated with sampling frequency as it impacts the ability to quantify atrazine concentrations from monitoring data (USEPA, 2011). The FIFRA SAP in 2011 advised that use of bias factors was a viable approach for addressing uncertainty in monitoring data. The following questions are related to the use of bias factors in identification of surface water bodies exceeding the atrazine CE-LOC.
   10. Please comment on the strengths and limitations of EPA's development and use of bias factors (Chapter V, Section 16.1) for addressing uncertainties in monitoring data.

12:30 P.M.	Lunch

1:30 P.M.	Topic C: Method for Comparing Monitoring Data to the Aquatic Plant Community LOC for Atrazine, cont'd

   11. Prediction of bias factors is dependent on the selection of an appropriate model. EPA illustrated (Chapter V, Section 16.1) both categorical and regression methods for prediction of bias factors based solely on the number of samples taken in the 2[nd] and 3[rd] quarters of the year (April 1[st] to September 30[th]).

         a. Please comment on EPA's prediction of bias factors from monitoring data using categorical or regression method approaches.

         b. Please comment on any additional methods for estimating bias factors that would be useful in this situation.

   12. EPA illustrated (Chapter V, Section 16.1) both categorical and regression methods for estimation of bias factors as a function of the sampling frequency of monitoring data. Step-wise regression analysis indicates that watershed size and average flow rate in the 2[nd] and 3[rd] quarters of the year are not significant variables for prediction of bias factors. However, the number of samples in the 2[nd] and 3[rd] quarters of the year was found to be a significant variable, accounting for 46% of the variation in the bias factor. What other variables, if any, should be considered in the prediction of bias factors?

3:15 P.M.	Break

3:30 P.M.	Topic C: Method for Comparing Monitoring Data to the Aquatic Plant Community LOC for Atrazine, cont'd

   13. EPA examined (Chapter V, Section 16.1) the performance of various regression equations to assess the failure percentage for identification of monitoring site-years with true maximum 60-day average concentrations exceeding the CE-LOC for atrazine. This analysis showed that application of a bias factor, based on sample number during the 2[nd] and 3[rd] quarter of the year, substantially reduced the number of sites with underestimation of true maximum 60-day means. Given the EPA analysis, what other tests, if any, should be conducted to assess the performance of regression models for prediction of bias factors?

   14. An important consideration for bias factor prediction is the ability to identify monitoring sites that potentially exceed the CE-LOC for atrazine. EPA provided an example (Chapter V, Section 16.2 and 16.3) of the use of a log-linear regression equation to estimate bias factors from the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program NAWQA data and identification of monitoring site-years exceeding the CE-LOC for atrazine. This analysis identified sites in both the Midwestern United States as well as outside the major corn growing areas with atrazine concentrations potentially above the CE-LOC. What are the strengths and limitations of using a single regression model for prediction of spatially and temporally explicit bias factors for a nationally-distributed monitoring data set?

5:30 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.  For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Sharlene Matten, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8956-8957]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03744]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0071; FRL-9942-81-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Recordkeeping and Reporting--Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), Recordkeeping and Reporting--
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices; ``(EPA ICR No. 1381.11,
OMB Control No. 2050-0122) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through May 31, 2016. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2015-0682 referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in
the text, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, Mail Code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
308-9037; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: In order to effectively implement and enforce final
changes to 40 CFR part 258 on a State level, owners/operators of
municipal solid waste landfills have to comply with the final reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Respondents include owners or operators
of new municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), existing MSWLFs, and
lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. The respondents, in complying
with 40 CFR part 258, are

required to record information in the facility operating record,
pursuant to Sec.  258.29, as it becomes available. The operating record
must be supplied to the State as requested until the end of the post-
closure care period of the MSWLF. The information collected will be
used by the State Director to confirm owner or operator compliance with
the regulations under Part 258. These owners or operators could include
Federal, State, and local governments, and private waste management
companies. Facilities in NAICS codes 9221, 5622, 3252, 3251 and 3253
may be affected by this rule.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit, as
well as State, Local, and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, see 40 CFR part
258.29.
    Estimated number of respondents: 3,800.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 204,808 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,211,000 (per year), includes $1,831,00
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is increase of 60 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase is due to the increased number of states adopting
the RD&D section (258.4) since the last ICR update.

    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2016-03744 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60419-60420]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ19-2-000]

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 7, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery
Company LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate
Changes to be effective 10/10/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website 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 protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 28, 2018.

    Dated: November 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25586 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 42465]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89262; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain Rules Within
Rules 4.5 Through 4.16, Which Contains the Exchange's Compliance Rule
Regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated
Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''), To Be Consistent With Certain Proposed
Amendments to and Exemptions From the CAT NMS Plan as Well as To
Facilitate the Retirement of Certain Existing Regulatory Systems

July 8, 2020.
    On January 22, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's compliance rule regarding
the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 5, 2020.\3\ On March 20, 2020, the Commission
extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
to May 5, 2020.\4\ On April 29, 2020, the Commission issued an order
instituting proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\
The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88103 (January 30,
2020), 85 FR 6640.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88445, 85 FR 17140
(March 26, 2020).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88774, 85 FR 26766
(May 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2020, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-CboeEDGX-2020-005).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15117 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32494-32495]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0034]

Port Authority Trans-Hudson's Request To Operate Its Positive
Train Control System With Procedural Mitigations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on May 23,
2022, Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) submitted a request to
temporarily operate its conditionally FRA-certified Communications
Based Train Control (CBTC) positive train control (PTC) system with a
procedural mitigation to address a recently discovered software error.
As this request involves the failure of a conditionally certified PTC
system to perform its intended function, FRA is publishing this notice
to advise the public that: PATH has determined the cause of the failure
to be a software error; PATH is in the process of repairing the error
without undue delay, as FRA's regulations require; and PATH has
proposed a procedural mitigation in the interim to ensure that the
software error will not cause a further failure of PATH's PTC system.
Based on FRA's review of all pertinent information, FRA has approved
PATH to temporarily operate its conditionally certified PTC system with
a procedural mitigation.

DATES: FRA may consider comments to the extent practicable and without
delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC
system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0034. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC
system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
236, subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue
service. Under 49 CFR 236.1023(j) and 236.1029(a), when any safety-
critical PTC system, subsystem, or component fails to perform its
intended function, the cause must be determined and the faulty product
adjusted, repaired, or replaced without undue delay. Until corrective
action is completed, a railroad shall take appropriate action as
specified in its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP).
    FRA conditionally certified PATH's CBTC PTC system on November 27,
2018. Since that time, to FRA's knowledge, PATH's PTC system has
operated reliably performing its intended functions, except in May
2022. Recently, PATH experienced two safety incidents on May 12 and May
17, 2022, with its PTC system. In response to

these safety incidents and until the cause of the incidents was
determined, PATH operated its PTC system in manual mode. Through
investigation, testing, and replication of the events that led to the
safety incidents, PATH determined on May 23, 2022, the cause to be a
software error. PATH subsequently developed a procedural mitigation to
prevent the unique series of events that resulted in the safety
incident. PATH is in parallel rectifying the software error.
    PATH requested to operate its PTC system in manned automatic train
control mode, with a procedural mitigation to prohibit the unique
series of events that resulted in the safety incident, which FRA
approved temporarily. As noted above, FRA's PTC regulations require
PATH to repair the software error without undue delay. See 49 CFR
236.1023(j), 236.1029(a).
    FRA will publish a further notice, including an opportunity for
comment, when PATH submits a request for amendment (RFA) to its PTCSP
that will include the update to PATH's PTC system rectifying the
software error, in accordance with 49 CFR 236.1021. As background,
before making certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the
associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host railroad must submit, and obtain
FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP. Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's
regulations provide that FRA will publish a notice in the Federal
Register and invite public comment in accordance with 49 CFR part 211,
if an RFA includes a request for approval of a material modification of
a signal and train control system.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-11633 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 59109-59111]
[DOCID:fr11oc05-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52546; File No. SR-NASD-2005-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 4 Examination Program

September 30, 2005.
    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 September 13, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') 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 NASD.
NASD has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Principal--Registered Options (Series 4)
examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions update the material to
reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the
examination, as well as modify the content of the examination program
to track more closely the functional workflow of a Series 4 limited
principal. NASD is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws,
Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules of NASD. The revisions that NASD is
submitting with this filing supersede all prior revisions to the Series
4 examination program submitted by NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD also is proposing corresponding revisions to the Series
4 question bank, but based upon instruction from the Commission
staff, NASD is submitting SR-NASD-2005-109 for immediate
effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question bank for
Commission review. See letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine,
Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation (``Division''),
Commission, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for
Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised study outline is available on NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com
), at NASD, and at the Commission.\6\ However, NASD has

omitted the Series 4 selection specifications from this filing and has
submitted the specifications under separate cover to the Commission
with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under
the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation between Mia Zur, Attorney, Jan Woo,
Attorney, Division, Commission, and Afshin Atabaki, Counsel, NASD,
dated September 23, 2005.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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
    Pursuant to Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\8\ which requires NASD to
prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with NASD members, NASD has developed examinations, and
administers examinations developed by other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs''), that are designed to establish that persons
associated with NASD members have attained specified levels of
competence and knowledge. NASD periodically reviews the content of the
examinations to determine whether revisions are necessary or
appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject matter covered
by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 1022(f) states that member firms engaged in, or intending
to engage in, transactions in security futures or put or call options
with the public must have at least one Registered Options and Security
Futures Principal. In addition, every individual engaged in the
management of the day-to-day options or security futures activities of
a firm must be registered as a Registered Options and Security Futures
Principal. The Series 4 examination, an industry-wide examination,
qualifies an individual to function as a Registered Options and
Security Futures Principal, but only for purposes of supervising a
member firm's options activities.\9\ The Series 4 examination tests a
candidate's knowledge of options trading generally, the industry rules
applicable to trading of option contracts, and the rules of registered
clearing agencies for options. The Series 4 examination covers, among

other things, equity options, foreign currency options, index options,
and options on government and mortgage-backed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Registered Options and Security Futures Principal also
must complete a firm-element continuing education program that
addresses security futures and a principal's responsibilities for
security futures before such person can supervise security futures
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 4 examination program is shared by NASD and the
following SROs: The American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the
Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
NASD and the SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the Series 4
examination program. As a result of this review and as part of an
ongoing effort to align the examination more closely to the supervisory
duties of a Series 4 limited principal, NASD is proposing to modify the
content of the examination to track the functional workflow of a Series
4 limited principal. More specifically, NASD is proposing to revise the
main section headings and the number of questions on each section of
the Series 4 study outline as follows: Options Investment Strategies,
decreased from 35 to 34 questions; Supervision of Sales Activities and
Trading Practices, increased from 71 to 75 questions; and Supervision
of Employees, Business Conduct, and Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, decreased from 19 to 16 questions. NASD is further
proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the SEC short sale
requirements. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of
knowledge required to supervise options activities.
    NASD proposes these changes to the entire content of the Series 4
examination, including the selection specifications and question bank.
The number of questions on the Series 4 examination will remain at 125,
and candidates will continue to have three hours to complete the exam.
Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each
candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive
a passing grade.
    On February 9, 2005, NASD filed with the SEC for immediate
effectiveness similar revisions to the Series 4 examination
program.\10\ NASD originally proposed to implement the Series 4
examination program revisions no later than April 29, 2005. However,
due to administrative issues, NASD delayed until no later than November
30, 2005 the implementation date of the revisions.\11\ In the interim,
the SROs that share the Series 4 examination program recommended
additional revisions to the examination program. These additional
revisions are reflected in the examination material that NASD is
submitting with this filing. NASD understands that the other SROs also
will file with the Commission similar proposed rule changes reflecting
the revisions to the Series 4 examination program. NASD continues to
propose to implement the revised Series 4 examination program no later
than November 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51216 (February 16,
2005), 70 FR 8866 (February 23, 2005) (relating to revisions to the
Series 4 examination program) (SR-NASD-2005-025).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51688 (May 12,
2005), 70 FR 28970 (May 19, 2005) (to delay implementation date of
revisions to the Series 4 examination program) (SR-NASD-2005-053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 4
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections
15A(b)(6) \12\ and 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\13\ which authorize NASD to
prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with NASD members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\15\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
NASD proposes to implement the revised Series 4 examination program no
later than November 30, 2005. NASD will announce the implementation
date in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days after
Notice of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-109 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-109. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-109 and should be submitted on or before November
1, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5562 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 77 (Friday, April 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21648-21649]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0126; FRL-10022-85-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; NSR Program Administrative Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), new and updated administrative rules for the
Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the New Source Review (NSR)
permitting program. The new and amended administrative rules in the
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) replace the currently effective
procedural rules in the NSR SIP in their entirety. As part of this
action, EPA is also approving the removal of obsolete language related
to Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. EPA proposed to approve
this action on February 26, 2021 and received no adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0126. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Mari
Gonz[aacute]lez, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari Gonz[aacute]lez, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On February 26, 2021, EPA proposed to approve revisions to replace
existing SIP-approved procedural rules contained in OAC Chapter 3745-47
with administrative rules from OAC 3745-49-01, 3745-49-02, 3745-49-05,
3745-49-06, 3745-49-07, and 3745-49-08. EPA also proposed to approve
the removal of 40 CFR 52.1884 from the CFR (86 FR 11691). An
explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the
revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and will not be restated here.
The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on March 29,
2021. EPA received no comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the Ohio SIP submitted on February
28, 2020. This submittal includes revisions which replace the entire
existing SIP-approved procedural rules in OAC 3745-47 with the
administrative rules from OAC 3745-49-01, 3745-49-02, 3745-49-05, 3745-
49-06, 3745-49-07, and 3745-49-08.
    EPA is also approving the removal of 40 CFR 52.1884 from the CFR.
The language contained in 40 CFR 52.1884 became obsolete when EPA
delegated authority to Ohio EPA to implement the Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in this document, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved
Ohio Regulations and Statutes from the Ohio SIP, which is incorporated
by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human

health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally
permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 22, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 15, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended:
0
a. By removing the heading ``Chapter 3745-47 Procedural Rules'' and
entries 3745-47-01, 3745-47-02, 3745-47-03, 3745-47-05, 3745-47-07, and
3745-47-08; and
0
b. By adding a heading immediately after the entry for 3745-45-05
titled ``Chapter 3745-49 Miscellaneous Rules'' followed by entries for
3745-49-01, 3745-49-02, 3745-49-05, 3745-49-06, 3745-49-07, and 3745-
49-08.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Ohio Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Ohio effective
      Ohio citation             Title/subject           date          EPA approval date            Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                       Chapter 3745-49 Miscellaneous Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3745-49-01...............  Administrative                4/2/2012  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                            Procedures--applicabi                   Federal Register
                            lity and construction                   CITATION].
                            of rules.
3745-49-02...............  Administrative                4/2/2012  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                            procedures--definitio                   Federal Register
                            ns.                                     CITATION].
3745-49-05...............  Draft actions and             4/2/2012  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                            proposed actions.                       Federal Register
                                                                    CITATION].
3745-49-06...............  Issuance of final             4/2/2012  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                            actions.                                Federal Register
                                                                    CITATION].
3745-49-07...............  Public notice.........       7/27/2019  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                                                                    Federal Register
                                                                    CITATION].
3745-49-08...............  Contents of public            4/2/2012  4/23/2021, [INSERT
                            notices.                                Federal Register
                                                                    CITATION].

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

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1884  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.1884 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2021-08375 Filed 4-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24104-24106]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11195]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0174; FRL-9978-21]

Advance Notice of Public Meeting; Technical Issues--Formaldehyde
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's plan for a public meeting
regarding technical issues in the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for
Composite Wood Products Final Rule published on December 12, 2016. The
meeting will inform EPA's potential development of a proposed rule to
address these technical issues and to further align the rule
requirements with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne
Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) Phase II program. The primary audience
for this public meeting is Third Party Certifiers (TPCs) and panel
producers who contract with TPCs to certify composite wood products
under the December 12, 2016 final rule; however, this meeting is open
to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 28, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. EDT to
4:00 p.m. EDT. EPA will accept questions from the public in advance of
the meeting, and will address these questions during the meeting as
time allows, if such questions are received by June 22, 2018.
    Members of the public who register to speak at the meeting may make
comments and may ask additional questions. Online requests to
participate in the meeting must be received on or before June 8, 2018.
On-site registration will be permitted, but seating and speaking
priority will be given to those who pre-register by the deadline. See
Unit III.B. for information on public participation in the meeting.

    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the
meeting logistics or registration person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting,
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA William Jefferson
Clinton East Building, Room 4225, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004.
    To participate in the Technical Issues Meeting; Formaldehyde
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products on June 28, 2018
(identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0174) you may register
online (preferred) or in person at the meeting. To register online, go
to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-technical-issues-formaldehyde-emission-standards-for-composite-wood-products-public-tickets-44550791617. Written comments, identified by the docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2018-0174 can be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for
hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    The comment period for this public meeting will open on May 24,
2018 and close July 28, 2018. The docket will remain open to receive
comments and materials until this date. When submitting comments to the
docket, please be as specific as possible, and please include any
supporting data or other information.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets in general is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information about the Technical Issues Meeting;
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products meeting
contact: Todd Coleman, National Programs Chemical Division (7404T),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].
    For meeting logistics or registration contact: Eva Cappuccilli,
National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-4688; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This public meeting is primarily directed to the TPCs and panel
producers who contract with TPCs to certify composite wood products
under the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products
final rule. Many of the technical issues that the Agency is considering
are directly related to the third-party certification testing
requirements for regulated composite wood products. In general,
fabricators, distributors and retailers who are affected by the
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products final rule
may also be interested in this meeting. Since stakeholders other than
TPCs may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be interested in the issues to be
discussed at the public meeting. Additionally, while the Agency seeks
to focus the public meeting on technical issues already raised to the
Agency, we are aware there may be other technical issues of interest to
stakeholders and have provided an opportunity under III. Meeting for
comments to be provided to the Agency in advance of the public meeting,
during oral comment at the meeting if time permits, or during the
public comment period after the meeting.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this notice, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0174, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products
final rule published on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674) and became
effective March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14324). Since publication of the final
rule, EPA received letters and other feedback from industry
stakeholders, including the Composite Panel Association, Hardwood
Plywood Veneer Association, Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association,
and various TPCs requesting that EPA provide clarification and possibly
amend certain provisions of the December 12, 2016 final rule to further
align this rule with the CARB ATCM Phase II program. The Agency has
already taken other actions to amend the rule to address other issues,
including allowing early labeling of compliant composite wood products
(see 82 FR 31922), extending the compliance dates in the December 12,
2016 final rule (see 82 FR 44533), and updating several voluntary
consensus standard versions as well as the equivalence provisions
between the ASTM E-1333 and ASTM D-6007 chamber (see 82 FR 5340). Based
on the discussion at the public meeting and other input sent to the
Agency during the public comment period, the Agency may consider
proposing additional technical amendments to clarify the rule
requirements or further align EPA's regulation with the CARB ATCM Phase
II program.
    The general nature of the issues raised by stakeholders, which are
reflected on the meeting agenda included in the docket for this
meeting, surround the testing and certification of composite wood
products under the final rule, including correlation of test methods,
equivalence of test methods, treatment of test data, and sampling
requirements under EPA's final rule. The Agency is also aware there is
interest from stakeholders in obtaining further guidance on how one can
petition the Agency for additional exemptions for laminated products
from the definition of ``hardwood plywood'' as allowed under Sec.
770.4(b) of the December 12,

2016 final rule. The Agency intends to address this issue separately,
potentially in a future public workshop.
    The public meeting on the technical issues is meant to enable the
Agency to receive broad input from all TPCs and other interested
stakeholders, request further public comment, data, or related
information on these and any related rule provisions that can help
improve consistency with CARB's regulation, improve clarity in the rule
where needed, and help improve overall implementation of the rule.

III. Meeting

A. Remote Access

    The meeting will be accessible remotely for registered
participants. Registered participants will receive information on how
to connect to the meeting prior to its start.

B. Public Participation at the Meeting

    Attendees and participants may register to attend the Technical
Issues; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products
meeting and provide oral comments and ask questions on the day of the
meeting, using one of the registration methods described under
ADDRESSES. Participants who want to provide oral comments or to ask
questions during the meeting must be registered as a speaker. The
Agency is most interested in receiving comments or questions on the
specific technical issues outlined on the meeting agenda, which would
include timing and ways to implement any changes should the agency
decide to propose additional technical amendments; however, comments or
questions can also be provided on other technical rule provisions that
can help improve consistency with CARB's regulation, improve clarity in
the rule, and help improve overall implementation of the rule. The
meeting agenda and stakeholder letters referenced in Unit II are
available in the docket and on EPA's website in advance of the meeting.
A registered speaker is encouraged to focus on issues directly relevant
to the meeting's subject matter, initially discussed under II.
Background of this notice. Each speaker will be allowed a reasonable
amount of time to provide relevant oral comments and ask questions. The
Agency requests that speakers limit their comments and questions to
five minutes in order to allow other participants a chance to speak as
well. If time allows, the Agency will offer more time at the conclusion
of the meeting for speakers to make additional comments or present
relevant material that they may not have been able to provide in their
initial five-minute segment. To accommodate as many registered speakers
as possible, speakers may present oral comments and questions only,
without visual aids or written material. Persons must register to speak
using the registration methods described under ADDRESSES. Persons
registered to speak (as well as others) may submit written materials to
the dockets as described under ADDRESSES. An agenda for the meeting and
supporting materials are available in the docket for this notice and on
EPA's website at www.epa.gov/formaldehyde. Additionally, EPA will
accept questions from the public in advance of the meeting, and address
these questions during the meeting as time allows, if such questions
are received by June 22, 2018. Questions should be submitted to the
technical contact for this meeting listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

IV. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

A. Registration

    To attend the meeting in person or to receive remote access, you
must register online no later than June 22, 2018, using one of the
methods described under ADDRESSES. While on-site registration will be
available, seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis, with
priority given to early registrants, until room capacity is reached.
For registrants not able to attend in person, the meeting will also
provide remote access capabilities; registered participants will be
provided information on how to connect to the meeting prior to its
start, using the email address that participants use to register for
this meeting.

B. Required Registration Information

    Attendees and participants may register to attend as observers or
to speak if planning to offer oral comments. To register for the
meeting online, you must provide your full name, organization or
affiliation, and contact information.

    Authority:  Section 601 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Louise P. Wise,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-11195 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P