and it stated that the term “SAA” is in wide use but has no
regulatory basis, and can be misleading because it implies that there is
a “central” accumulation area at the site, which may not be true
(Commenter No. 43).  The commenter stated that it would be preferable to
establish "waste accumulation areas" which could serve as either
"satellite" or "super-satellite" areas.

Another commenter stated that each lab should be considered a point
source, and the location where any waste is placed prior to removal and
storage in a Main Accumulation Area should be designated an SAA
(Commenter No. 46).

Two commenters expressed concern about some of the language in the
preamble/rule on SAAs (e.g., that the hazardous waste determination
needs to be made at the SAA; that “under the control of the
generators” means that the generator can hit the containers with a
Frisbee) (Commenter Nos. 56 and 88).  The commenters suggested that EPA
consider revising and clarifying the satellite accumulation provision
for all generators instead of creating a unique rule for just university
and college laboratories. One of the commenters suggested that the
Agency should consider flexible labeling requirements for SAAs
(Commenter No. 88).

Another commenter stated that there is confusion about the amount of
waste that may be accumulated in laboratories (Commenter No. 87).  The
commenter stated that EPA should provide further discussion on how to
implement the satellite accumulation provisions in various “real
world” settings; in addition, EPA should issue guidance acknowledging
that accumulation limits in each laboratory should be based upon the
specific types of waste streams being generated, recognizing that
combining certain types of waste streams may be hazardous or may
complicate subsequent management of the resulting mixture.  The
commenter stated that EPA also should clarify how to comply with SAA
requirements (e.g., ways to comply with the requirement for closed
containers).

Response:  Because most laboratories operate under the RCRA satellite
accumulation area regulations of 40 CFR 262.34, Subpart K was crafted to
provide an alternative to the satellite accumulation area regulations.
We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart K an
approach for revising the SAA regulations themselves or interpretations
pertaining to SAAs.  Therefore, it is outside the scope of this
rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add any such provisions to the
final rule.

Comment:  We heard from three commenters asking for clarification of the
existing RCRA regulations applicable to sink discharges of chemicals
(Commenter Nos. 38, 45, 107).  One of the commenters asked EPA to take
the occasion of addressing Subpart K amendments to define with clarity
the relationship between RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the
benefit of institutions with laboratory operations (Commenter No. 38).
The commenter discussed the problems and hazards associated with the
handling and accumulation of lab packs and stated that adoption of a de
minimis rule for sink disposal of waste would encourage elimination of
such hazards from the workplace immediately in an environmentally sound
manner.  Another commenter noted that the presence of drains (“...
laboratory hood, a contained area equipped with ventilation and
drainage...”) is alluded to, but the possibility of a student using
the sink drain as a waste disposal route, either inadvertently or
deliberately, is not mentioned (Commenter No. 45). The commenter asked
to see more specific information regarding this issue.

Response:  We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart K
an approach for revising the regulations or interpretations pertaining
to sink discharges of laboratory chemicals.  Therefore, because the
Agency did not provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on
this subject, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does
not intend to add any such provisions to the final rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA should restructure
the hazardous waste regulations away from lists and towards
scientifically determined and internationally recognized hazards of
materials (Commenter No. 101).  The commenter noted that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is considering adopting
the Global Harmonized System of Classifying and Labeling Chemicals
(GHS).  The commenter suggested that EPA begin to reconsider hazardous
waste generation in the United States along similar lines.

Response:  Implementing the commenter’s suggestion would require a
complete revision of the RCRA regulations for hazardous waste listings
and characteristics.  We did not specifically identify in the proposal
to Subpart K a regulatory approach for revising the hazardous waste
listings and characteristics.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that research laboratories
often collaborate with each other, or with colleges and universities,
and send samples to other laboratories for study or analysis (Commenter
No. 87).  The commenter stated that, once the work has been completed,
the recipients of the samples frequently want to send the remaining
material back to the originator, indicating that disposal of these
materials should be the "owner's" responsibility; however, these
laboratories voice concerns about the regulatory burden associated with
receipt of the remaining material.  The laboratory that originally sent
out the sample usually will not accept a return of the material, fearing
that the sample may not have further value and may be considered a
hazardous waste, triggering a RCRA violation. The commenter suggested
that EPA should issue guidance allowing (but not necessarily requiring)
the originating facility to accept returns of their samples for
evaluation and possible reuse.  The commenter also stated unwillingness
of TSDFs to accept experimental compounds for which there is a lack of
hazard data.  The commenter asked EPA to issue guidance or take
regulatory action to enable these facilities to handle this waste as
“samples.”

Response:   We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart
K a regulatory approach for enabling eligible academic entities to
accept leftover samples from other institutions with which they
collaborate.  Therefore, because the Agency did not provide notice and
an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it is outside the
scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add any such
provisions to the final rule.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter expressing concern that some
research and development laboratories face economic costs because of the
storage limits set by the 90-day rule (Commenter No. 87). Because the
90-day “clock” for the accumulation time limit begins when the
oldest container is placed into a drum, research and development
laboratories generating small numbers of lab packs are often unable to
fill a drum within that 90-day period.  As a result, many laboratories
have to ship partially full drums to get the waste off-site before 90
days has elapsed, resulting in significant inefficiencies and excess
costs.  The commenter noted that these high costs could be reduced if
research and development laboratories were allowed to accumulate these
types of wastes on-site for a longer period of time and hence were able
to accumulate sufficient material to ship full drums to off-site
disposal facilities.  The commenter recommended that EPA consider
extending the 90-day accumulation period to at least 180 days for wastes
generated from research and development laboratories in order to address
this concern.

Response:  We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart K
a regulatory approach for extending the accumulation period for LQGs.
Therefore, because the Agency did not provide notice and an opportunity
for public comment on this subject, it is outside the scope of this
rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add any such provisions to the
final rule.

17.0	Miscellaneous Comments

Comment: We heard from one commenter encouraging EPA to develop guidance
and additional materials that establish realistic expectations regarding
the waste minimization challenges that are unique to laboratories
(Commenter No. 87).  The commenter believes it would be helpful if EPA
were to provide guidance for inspectors that acknowledge that only
limited opportunities for waste minimization may exist at most labs and
encourage inspectors to look for a good faith effort to identify waste
minimization opportunities in laboratories, rather than expecting a very
specific plan with targeted volume/hazard reductions.

Response:  We recognize the need identified by the commenter for
developing guidance regarding waste minimization at laboratories.
However, that is outside the scope of this current rulemaking and would
require a separate effort by EPA to provide such guidance in the future.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that the proposed rule and
preamble are silent on whether college or university hazardous waste
management facilities opting to be covered by Subpart K would be
required to obtain a permit modification (Commenter No. 14).  The
commenter recommended that the final rule include guidance on how the
Subpart K rules would impact existing hazardous waste permits.  The
commenter believes it is reasonable that facility hazardous waste
permits should be consistent with the Subpart K rules for those parts of
the facility’s operations regulated under Subpart K.  To encourage
states to adopt the rule, the commenter recommends that the modification
of existing permits for facilities opting for coverage under the new
rules be considered a Class 1 permit modification under 40 CFR 270.42.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that an eligible academic entity
that has a permit and opts into Subpart K may be required to obtain a
permit modification.  It would be up to the State that issued the permit
to decide whether a permit modification would be required and which type
of permit modification would be necessary.

Comment: We heard from two commenters recommending that EPA should
include the HHMI Consensus Best Practices as a non-mandatory Appendix to
Subpart K (Commenter Nos. 60, 98).  One of the commenters stated that
the 14 Best Practices would provide helpful guidance for colleges and
universities who are developing performance-based environmental systems
to manage hazardous waste programs (Commenter No. 60).

Response:  We believe that including the HHMI Consensus Best Practices
as a non-mandatory Appendix to the regulations of Subpart K would be
confusing.  OSHA included a non-mandatory appendix that consisted of an
example Chemical Hygiene Plan in its Laboratory Standard (29 CFR
1910.140), and EPA has often been told that it has led to confusion
about whether laboratories need to have a CHP.  Therefore, we are not
including the HHMI Consensus Best Practices as a non-mandatory appendix
to Subpart K.

Eligible academic entities may choose to refer to the HHMI Consensus
Best Practices in EPA’s 2002 Report to Congress on the HHMI initiative
when developing their LMPs (entitled Evaluating the Consensus Best
Practices Developed through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s
Collaborative Hazardous Waste Management Demonstration Project and the
Need for Regulatory Changes to Carry Out Project Recommendations; Report
to Congress and available at
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/generation/labwaste/r02008.pdf)

Comment:  We heard from one commenter urging EPA to approve the final
rule in a timely manner that will allow participants under the New
England Universities Academic Laboratories XL (Project XL) to move from
waste management under Project XL to waste management under the new
rule, without having to return to RCRA in the labs (Commenter No. 95).
The commenter also asked EPA to provide enough flexibility in the new
Subpart K language to allow for Project XL participants to continue
those successful components within the approved regulatory framework of
Project XL.

Response:  The final rule will be finalized by the time the New England
Universities Academic Laboratories XL expires on April 15, 2009.
However, the final rule will not be effective in Massachusetts and
Vermont until those states adopt the rule.  EPA Region I plans to work
with Massachusetts and Vermont to help the states adopt the final rule
as quickly as possible and minimize the disruption to the three
universities involved in Project XL.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter suggesting that EPA establish a
requirement for a college or university to set up a "pharmacy" or
"redistribution facility" that will redistribute unused chemicals to
laboratories that need them (Commenter No. 102).  The commenter believes
the pharmacy and redistribution concept is a method to reduce the amount
of hazardous waste generated and to prevent the stockpiling of chemicals
at laboratories that may not have the proper facilities to store
accumulated unwanted materials that another laboratory on campus may
need. The commenter stated that there should be a maximum storage time
limit for the unwanted chemicals in the pharmacy or redistribution
facility that extends at least until the expiration date of the
chemical, to prevent stockpiling.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that the pharmacy and
redistribution facility concept is a method to promote the reuse of
chemicals rather than discarding them.  We disagree with the commenter
that Subpart K should include a requirement to establish a pharmacy or
redistribution facility.  First, we have heard from many stakeholders
over the years that they have had limited success in redistributing
chemicals amongst laboratories because of concerns about the purity of
chemicals.  Second, some eligible academic entities lack the space and
resources to establish and operate such a facility.  Therefore, we are
not requiring eligible academic entities that opt into Subpart K to
establish pharmacy or chemical redistribution facilities.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter suggesting that EPA establish a
requirement for a RCRA-trained person at a college or university to
inspect its college or university’s laboratories (Commenter No. 102).
The commenter stated that, in its experience, self-inspections can be
beneficial to the college or university in increasing its compliance
rate.  The commenter urged EPA to establish an inspection frequency of
no less than semi-annually for each lab at the college or university.

Response:  We do not believe it is necessary to require inspections of
laboratories by trained professionals.  This is because Subpart K
already requires regularly scheduled removals of unwanted materials from
laboratories and trained professional must accompany all transfers of
unwanted materials outside the laboratory.  Therefore, a trained
professional will be in each laboratory on a regular basis and be able
to observe conditions in the laboratory.

Nevertheless, an eligible academic entity may choose to include in Part
II of its LMP an element indicating that it will conduct inspections of
its laboratories.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter suggesting that laboratory
chemical reviews should be required and recorded once per year which
will encourage good inventory management and waste minimization
(Commenter No. 66).  The commenter stated that laboratory chemical
reviews should be required and recorded in chemical stockrooms that are
related to labs.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that it is a good practice to
maintain an inventory of laboratory chemicals.  Therefore, we have added
an element to Part II of the LMP requiring that an eligible academic
entity must develop a list of chemicals that the eligible academic
entity has, or is likely to have, that become more dangerous when they
exceed their expiration date and/or as they degrade, as well as
procedures to safely dispose of chemicals that become more dangerous
when they exceed their expiration date and/or as they degrade.  We
realize that keeping a complete inventory of all laboratory chemicals
can be burdensome and we believe it is a better use of resources to
focus the inventory on the most dangerous chemicals.  Of course, an
eligible academic entity may choose to go beyond the requirement and
maintain a complete inventory of all laboratory chemicals.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter noting the need for colleges and
universities to prepare for emergency responses (Commenter No. 95).  The
commenter stated that offsite emergency responders may not enter a
building or lab unless an onsite person can provide relevant information
about the hazards.  The commenter urged EPA to allow universities to
develop specific performance-based emergency response plans.

Response:  We agree with the commenter and have included in Part II of
the LMP, a requirement for an eligible academic entity to describe its
intended best practices for emergency prevention, including:

Procedures for emergency prevention, notification, and response,
appropriate to the hazards in the laboratory, and

A list of chemicals that the eligible academic entity has, or is likely
to have, that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration
date and/or as they degrade, and

 Procedures to safely dispose of chemicals that become more dangerous
when they exceed their expiration date and/or as they degrade, and

 Procedures for the timely characterization of unknown chemicals.

In addition, LQGs and SQGs are subject to the emergency response
requirements included in 40 CFR 262.34(a) and 262.34(d), respectively.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter stating that varying
interpretations of the solid waste definition have occasionally led to a
requirement that surplus chemicals, even unopened materials, must be
managed as wastes (Commenter No. 68).  The commenter suggested that EPA
create a new definition for the term “surplus chemicals” and an
explicit regulatory exclusion for these materials at section
261.4(a)(22).  The commenter offered specific language for the
definition and exclusion.  The commenter believes this could help to
remedy a long-standing confusion about the regulatory status of
chemicals not wanted in one lab but perfectly useable in others.   We
heard from another commenter expressing concern the existing RCRA
regulations do not include sufficient mechanisms to enable labs to
remove recoverable chemicals from the hazardous waste stream once they
are removed from a lab destined for disposal (Commenter No. 46).  The
commenter stated that there should be a completely different set of
waste characterization processes for laboratories, which would allow
energy/resource recovery, as RCRA was originally intended, and yet allow
truly waste-like chemicals with no recoverable value to be declared
hazardous waste under the existing RCRA regulations.

Response:  It has always been the case under existing RCRA regulations,
and continues to be the case under Subpart K, that chemicals that are
fit for continued use are not solid or hazardous wastes (see §
261.2(e)(1)) and can be transferred between SAAs, laboratories, and
chemical stockrooms.  Under Subpart K, we realize that some chemicals
that are initially identified as unwanted materials will turn out not to
be solid or hazardous wastes.  If, for example, an unwanted material is
brought to an on-site CAA or TSDF for a hazardous waste determination,
and it is determined that such unwanted material can be reused, then it
is not a solid or hazardous waste and is not subject to Subpart K or the
Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, once the determination is made.
That is, if a chemical is initially labeled as an unwanted material and
then it is subsequently discovered that it can continue to be used, the
chemical can be returned to a laboratory or chemical stockroom for
redistribution.  EPA selected the term “unwanted material” over
“laboratory waste,” in part to indicate that the material may still
be useable.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA needs to address
point of generation issues and management of containers associated with
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and other automated lab
equipment in guidance or regulations (Commenter No. 99).

Response:  As we stated in a memo regarding satellite accumulation
areas, dated March 17, 2004 (Springer to Regions),

“The container(s) attached to such equipment [i.e., HPLCs and other
automated lab equipment] is a point of generation.”

The same would be true under Subpart K.  That is, the discharges from
HPLCs and other in-line equipment would be considered unwanted materials
and the containers must be labeled in accordance with the Subpart K
labeling requirements.  Under the container management standards of
Subpart K, in-line containers may be vented when it’s required for the
operation of the equipment.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA officials stated
that the Generator Initiative will address items of interest to colleges
and universities that are not included in the proposed rule (Commenter
No. 89).  The commenter encouraged EPA to proceed with the initiative as
soon as feasible.

Response:  We thank the commenter for his support.  We continue to work
on items of concern identified during the Generator Initiative public
meetings.

Appendix I: Organizations Commenting on Proposed Rule

The table below identifies each organization that commented on the
proposed rule and its commenter number, as used in this Response to
Comment Document; and document ID number, as used in the docket for the
Rule.

Commenter Number	Document

ID Number	Commenter Name

1	0069	University of Tennessee

2	0070	Temple University

3	0132	Children's Hospital Boston

4	0071

0071.1	National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

5	0072	U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID) – Fort Detrick, Maryland

6	0073	Clemson University

7	0074

0074.1	American Chemical Society (ACS)

8	0075	University of Nebraska - Lincoln

9	0076	Worcester Polytechnic Institute

10	0077

0077.1	Vermont Educational Safety Committee (VESCO)

11	0078

0078.1	National Safety Council (NSC)/Campus Safety Health and
Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA)

12	0079	Missouri Department of Natural Resources

13	0080	Utah State University

14	0081

0081.1	National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
National Institutes of Health (NIH)

15	0082

0082.1	University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

16	0083	Williams College

17	0084	Medical College of Georgia

18	0085	Michigan Technological University

19	0086

0086.1	Florida Atlantic University

20	0087	South Dakota State University

21	0088	University of Nebraska at Omaha

22	0089

0089.1	Eastern Virginia Medical School

23	0090	Elon University Chemistry Department

24	0091

0091.1	Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

25	0092	University of Utah

26	0093	N/A - FR Notice:  Extension of Comment Period

27	0094	N/A - Incomplete Submission, Resubmitted as 0116

28	0095	East Virginia Medical School

29	0096

0096.1	Iowa State University

30	0097

0097.1	American Council of Education, the National Association of
College and University Business Officers, American Association of
Medical Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, Association of American Universities, National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

31	0098	University of Central Florida

32	0099	Vanderbilt University

33	0100

0100.1	U.S. Department of Energy

34	0101

0101.1	Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

35	0102

0102.1	University of North Carolina

36	0103

0103.1	Northwestern University

37	0104

0104.1	Ohio State University

38	0105

0105.1-4	Concerned Citizen

39	0106

0106.1	Novartis Corporation

40	0107	Concerned Citizen

41	0108	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

42	0109	Northeastern State University

43	0110	Georgia Institute of Technology

44	0111	Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

45	0112	New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

46	0113	Private Citizen

47	0114	University of Alabama-Birmingham

48	0115

0115.1	University of Michigan

49	0116

0116.1	University of Vermont

50	0117	N/A – Duplicate Submission of 0113

51	0118	Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc

52	0119	Private Citizen

53	0120	Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

54	0121	University of Rochester

55	0122	Private Citizen

56	0123

0123.1	Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

57	0124	University of Cincinnati

58	0125	Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

59	0126	Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

60	0127

0127.1-2	Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HMMI)

61	0128

0128.1	Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence (C2E2)

62	0129

0129.1	Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)

63	0130

0130.1	N/A – Comment on Manifest Rule that was incorrectly submitted
to Labs Rule

64	0131

0131.1	University of Delaware

65	0133	University of Arkansas - Fayetteville

66	0134	Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

67	0135

0135.1	Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

68	0136

0136.1	Stanford University

69	0137

0137.1	University of Minnesota

70	0138

0138.1	University of Pittsburgh

71	0139

0139.1	Brigham Young University

72	0140

0140.1-2	Northeastern University

73	0141

0141.1	Walla Walla College

74	0142

0142.1	State of Washington DEC

75	0143

0143.1	Rockefeller University

76	0144

0144.1	University of Washington

77	0145

0145.1	University of California

78	0146	University of Texas System

79	0147

0147.1	Emory University

80	0148

0148.1	Washington University in St. Louis

81	0149

0149.1	Cornell University

82	0150	Private Citizen

83	0151	Washington State University

84	0152

0152.1	Environmental Technology Council (ETC)

85	0153

0153.1	University of Wisconsin System Administration (UWSA)

86	0154

0154.1	University of Illinois at Chicago

87	0155

0155.1	Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

88	0156

0156.1	University of Texas at Austin

89	0157

0157.1	University of Wisconsin – Madison

90	0158

0158.1	Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge

91	0159

0159.1	University of Missouri - Columbia

92	0160	Private Citizen

93	0161	Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)

94	0162	Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI)

95	0163	Boston College

96	0164	Boston University

97	0165	Otterbein College

98	0166

0166.1	University of Pennsylvania

99	0167

0167.1	The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

100	0168

0168.1	St. John’s University

101	0169	Colorado College

102	0170	Georgia Department of Natural Resources

103	0171

0171.1	N/A – Incorrect Submission, Removed from Docket

Resubmitted as 0181

104	0172	Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

105	0173

0173.1	North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

106	0174	University of Louisville

107	0175

0175.1	Oak Ridge National Laboratory

108	0176

0176.1	Yale University

109	0177	University of Wisconsin – Madison

110	0178	Harvard University

111	0179	Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

112	0180	University of Alabama

113	0181	RCRAInfo Change Management Process Site Identification Program
Group

114	0182

0182.1-2	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

115	0183	State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection

116	0185	U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service

Appendix II:  Organizations Whose Comments Received Support from Other
Organizations

A number of organizations that submitted comments on the proposed rule
expressed general support for the comments submitted by another
organization.  In total, six commenters received the support of other
organizations.  These six commenters (and their respective commenter
number) include:

American Chemical Society (Commenter No. 7; Docket No. 0074/0074.1);

American Council of Education, the National Association of College and
University Business Officers, American Association of Medical Colleges,
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Association of
American Universities, National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges (Commenter No. 30; Docket No. 0097/0097.1);

Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence (Commenter No. 61; Docket
No. 0128/0128.1);

Council on Governmental Relations (Commenter No. 62; Docket No.
0129/0129.1);

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Commenter No. 60; Docket No.
0127/0127.1-2); and

National Safety Council/Campus Safety Health and Environmental
Management Association (Commenter No. 11; Docket No. 0078/0078.1).

The table below lists these six organizations. Below each, the table
identifies the commenters that expressed support, by commenter number,
document ID number and name.

Commenter Number	Document ID Number	Commenter Name

American Chemical Society

86	0154

0154.1	University of Illinois at Chicago

96	0164	Boston University

American Council of Education, the National Association of College and
University Business Officers, American Association of Medical Colleges,
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Association of
American Universities, National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges

93	0161	Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)

Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence

95	0163	Boston College

101	0169	Colorado College

Council on Governmental Relations

77	0145

0145.1	University of California

112	0180	University of Alabama

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

75	0143

0143.1	Rockefeller University

76	0144

0144.1	University of Washington

80	0148

0148.1	Washington University in St. Louis

89	0157

0157.1	University of Wisconsin – Madison

National Safety Council/Campus Safety Health and Environmental
Management Association

8	0075	University of Nebraska - Lincoln

9	0076	Worcester Polytechnic Institute

15	0082

0082.1	University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

17	0084	Medical College of Georgia

18	0085	Michigan Technological University

20	0087	South Dakota State University

21	0088	University of Nebraska at Omaha

22	0089

0089.1	Eastern Virginia Medical School

23	0090	Elon University Chemistry Department

25	0092	University of Utah

30	0097

0097.1	American Council of Education, the National Association of
College and University Business Officers, American Association of
Medical Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, Association of American Universities, National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

31	0098	University of Central Florida

34	0101

0101.1	Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

35	0102

0102.1	University of North Carolina

36	0103

0103.1	Northwestern University

37	0104

0104.1	Ohio State University

49	0116

0116.1	University of Vermont

54	0121	University of Rochester

61	0128

0128.1	Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence

62	0129

0129.1	Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)

64	0131

0131.1	University of Delaware

65	0133	University of Arkansas - Fayetteville

68	0136

0136.1	Stanford University

69	0137

0137.1	University of Minnesota

72	0140

0140.1-2	Northeastern University

73	0141

0141.1	Walla Walla College

77	0145

0145.1	University of California

78	0146	University of Texas System

80	0148

0148.1	Washington University in St. Louis

85	0153

0153.1	University of Wisconsin System Administration (UWSA)

86	0154

0154.1	University of Illinois at Chicago

89	0157

0157.1	University of Wisconsin – Madison

90	0158

0158.1	Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge

95	0163	Boston College

96	0164	Boston University

97	0165	Otterbein College

100	0168	St. John’s University

101	0169	Colorado College

104	0172	Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

106	0174	University of Louisville

109	0177	University of Wisconsin – Madison

110	0178	Harvard University

112	0180	University of Alabama

 EPA identified commenter support based on either a commenter’s
statement of support or a request by the commenter for the rule to apply
to its organization or industry sector.

 The ACGME defines these terms in the “Glossary of Terms” that
appears on its website at   HYPERLINK
"http://acgme.org/acWebsite/about/ab_ACGMEglossary.pdf"
http://acgme.org/acWebsite/about/ab_ACGMEglossary.pdf .  The ACGME also
describes these documents in more detail in a document called Frequently
Asked Questions Related to Master Affiliation Agreements and Program
Letters of Agreement that appears on its website at
http://acgme.org/acWebsite/about/ab_FAQAgreement.pdf.

h

{

é

^

È

$

-

.

/

0

3

4

Y

Z

[

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

™

š

›

œ

Ÿ

Ç

È

É

ã

ä

-ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

.

/

0

1

4

5

<

=

>

X

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

`

|

}

~

‚

ƒ

¥

¦

§

Á

Â

Ã

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

æ

ç

j;

1ç

è

é

ì

í

j¬

j/

j¸

j

옍

Æ

h[

â

Ó

Ô

摧ᩭ©ᜀâ

û

Ò

Ó

Ô

ß

{

|

²

³

摧猐Ç̀

㜀$␸䠀$摧ⱻ	㜀$␸䠀$摧ⱻ

#

§

°

ÿ

¦

§

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

hÃ

E

਀&䘋

ç

ç

ð

„

™

®

Ã

Aç

è

h8

萏ː葞ː摧‼r̈਀Ħ䘋

摧娜R̈਀Ħ䘋

9

M

b

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

kd

@

:

:

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

:

:

:

:

?

:

葞摧㨎

葞摧㨎

葞摧㨎

峃

\

 The Agency has recently issued a memo clarifying that the scope of the
P042 listing does not include epinephrine salts (see memo from Hale to
EPA Regions, October 15, 2007, RCRA Online #14778).

 It appears Commenter No. 81 has provided comments supporting both
approaches.

 PAGE

	   PAGE  ii

NOVEMBER 12, 2008

	   PAGE  162

NOVEMBER 12, 2008


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21065-21071]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622; FRL-9798-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New
Source Review-Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Georgia
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Georgia,
through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to EPA, on September 26, 2006 (with a
clarifying revision submitted on November 6, 2006), and July 26, 2012.
The September 26, 2006, SIP submission makes multiple changes to the
Georgia SIP including the State's permit exemption provisions. The July
26, 2012, submission includes changes to Georgia's New Source Review
(NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to
incorporate by reference (IBR) federal PSD requirements regarding the
implementation of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the deferral of,
until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to biogenic carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources as well as additional air quality rule revisions. EPA is
approving portions of these submittals as revisions to Georgia's SIP
because the Agency has determined that they are consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding NSR
permitting. EPA is also responding to comments received on the January
14, 2012, proposed rulemaking.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Georgia
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding NSR or PSD, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section,
at the same address above. Ms. Adams' telephone number is (404) 562-
9241; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding
the PM2.5 NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Huey's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA is taking final action to approve portions of Georgia's July
26, 2012, and September 26, 2006 (with a clarifying revision submitted
on November 6, 2006) \1\ SIP submittals. The July 26, 2012, submission
revises Georgia's SIP at Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality to IBR \2\ the
version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, including certain federal
NSR permitting requirements promulgated in the: (1) ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC), Final Rule,'' 75 FR
64864 (October 20, 2010), (hereafter referred to as the
``PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs-SMC Rule); \3\ (2) ``Deferral
for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs,'' Final Rule, 76 FR 43490 (July 20, 2011) (hereafter referred
to as CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule); and (3) EPA's interim
rulemaking entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of
Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions,'' 76 FR 17548
(March 30, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the ``Fugitive Emissions
Interim Rule''). The July 26, 2012, submittal also requests that EPA
remove from the SIP the exclusion language at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)
regarding the coarse particle pollution (PM10) surrogate and
grandfathering provision promulgated in the ``Implementation of the New
Source Review Program for Particulate

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers'' Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008)
(hereafter referred to as ``NSR PM2.5 Rule'') and amends the
following regulations: (1) Rule 391-3-1-.01(nnn)--Definitions regarding
testing and monitoring of air pollutants; (2) Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(c)--
Incinerators; and (3) Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)--Exemptions. The September
26, 2006, SIP submittal adds new text at 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(3) regarding
Georgia's permit exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 26, 2006, Georgia submitted to EPA multiple SIP
revisions to Georgia's Air Quality Rules found at Chapter 391-3-1. A
clarifying revision was submitted on November 6, 2006. EPA took
action on a portion of Georgia's September 26, 2006, submittal in
multiple actions published in the Federal Register on February 9,
2010 (75 FR 6309) and December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74624). Action on the
remaining portions of the September 26, 2006, submittal is still
under consideration and will be addressed in separate actions. See
75 FR 74624.
    \2\ Throughout this document IBR means ``incorporate by
reference'' or ``incorporates by reference.''
    \3\ As is explained later in this final action, EPA is not
taking action to approve either the SILs or SMC portions of that
rule. Further, EPA's January 14, 2013, proposed rule did not include
a proposal to approve Georgia's SILs submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2013, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
many of the aforementioned changes to Georgia's SIP. See 78 FR 2872.
Details regarding these changes and EPA's final action are summarized
below in Section II. EPA's January 14, 2013, proposed rulemaking
contains more detailed information regarding Georgia's SIP revisions
being approved today and the rationale for today's final action.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before February 13,
2013. EPA received one set of comments, and is responding to the
comments relevant to today's final action which is not acting on
everything that was included in the January 14, 2013, proposal, due to
a recent court decision. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is now
taking final action to approve certain changes to Georgia's SIP.
    In this rulemaking EPA is not taking final action on portions of
the July 26, 2012, SIP submittal regarding Georgia's request for
incorporation of the PM2.5 SILs and SMC thresholds as
promulgated in EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. EPA
will initiate a separate action to address these portions of the
submittal. See below for more explanation on the SILs and SMC
thresholds. Additionally, Georgia's July 26, 2012, submittal included
certain rules that are not a part of Georgia's federally-approved SIP.
As a result, EPA is not taking action on those rules, which are as
follows: Rules 391-3-1-.02(www)--Sewage Sludge Incineration, 391-3-
1-.03(9)--Permit Fees, 391-3-1-.02(8)(b)--New Source Performance
Standards and 391-3-1-.02(9)(b)--Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, as these regulations are not part of Georgia's federally-
approved SIP.

A. PM2.5 PSD Increment SILs-SMC Rule

    The PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule provided
additional regulatory provisions under the PSD program regarding the
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR including: (1)
PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the
NAAQS; (2) SILs used as a screening tool (by a major source subject to
PSD) to evaluate the impact a proposed major source or modification may
have on the NAAQS or PSD increment; and (3) a SMC, (also a screening
tool) used by a major source subject to PSD to determine the subsequent
level of PM2.5 data gathering required for a PSD permit
application. PSD increments prevent air quality in attainment/
unclassifiable areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS.
Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate ``significant
deterioration'' \4\ of air quality for a pollutant in an area. Under
section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must demonstrate
that emissions from the proposed construction and operation of a
facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of
any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for any
pollutant.'' When a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated
pollutant in an area that meets the NAAQS, the state and EPA must
determine if emissions of the regulated pollutant from the source will
cause significant deterioration in air quality. As described in the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, pursuant to the authority
under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical PSD
increments for PM2.5 as a new pollutant \5\ for which NAAQS
were established after August 7, 1977,\6\ and derived 24-hour and
annual PM2.5 increments for the three area classifications
(Class I, II and III) using the ``contingent safe harbor'' approach.
See 75 FR 64869 and the ambient air increment tables at 40 CFR
51.166(c)(1) and 52.21(c). In addition to PSD increments for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule amended the definition at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for ``major
source baseline date'' and ``minor source baseline date'' (including
trigger date) to establish the PM2.5 NAAQS specific dates
associated with the implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments.
See 75 FR 64864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new
pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the
``maximum allowable increase'' of an air pollutant allowed to occur
above the applicable baseline concentration for that pollutant.
Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline concentration
of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is generally the air
quality at the time of the first application for a PSD permit in the
area.
    \5\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained
the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 as if
PM2.5 was a new pollutant even though EPA had already
developed air quality criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864
(October 20, 2012).
    \6\ EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate
pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of
section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For background purposes, the SILs and SMC portions of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule, which EPA is not taking
action on today, are numerical values that represent thresholds of
insignificant modeled source impacts or monitored (ambient)
concentrations, respectively. EPA established such values to be used as
screening tools by a major source subject to PSD to determine the
subsequent level of analysis and data gathering required for a PSD
permit application for emissions of PM2.5.
    The Sierra Club challenged EPA's authority to implement the
PM2.5 SILs and SMC for PSD purposes as promulgated in the
October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. On
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued an order vacating and remanding to EPA for
further consideration the portions of its PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule addressing the PM2.5 SILs, except
for the parts codifying the PM2.5SILs in the NSR rule at 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 469. The court
also vacated parts of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
establishing the PM2.5 SMC, finding that the Agency had
exceeded its statutory authority with respect to these provisions. Id.
The D.C. Circuit Court's decision can be found in the docket for
today's rulemaking at www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0622.
    As a result of D.C. Circuit Court's decision, EPA is not taking
action at this time on any portions of Georgia's PSD SIP submission
regarding the PM2.5SILs and SMC provisions described at 40
CFR 51.166 and 52.21, which have now been vacated and remanded.
Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR both the PM2.5 SIL
and SMC screening tools promulgated in EPA's October 20, 2010,
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In the January 14, 2013,
proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve into the Georgia SIP the
PM2.5 SMC but not the PM2.5 SILs. While the
Agency proposed to approve the SMC in the January 14, 2013, proposed
rule, the Agency is not moving forward with this proposed approval as a
result of the court's January 22, 2013, decision. EPA will consider
Georgia's January 26, 2012, SIP revision (and EPA's previous

proposal) with regard to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC thresholds
in an action separate from today's rulemaking.

B. CO2 Biomass Deferral

    As was explained in more detail in EPA's January 14, 2013, proposed
rulemaking, EPA's CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule defers until
July 21, 2014, the consideration of CO2 emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic sources (hereafter referred to as
``biogenic CO2 emissions'') when determining whether a
stationary source meets the PSD and title V applicability thresholds,
including those for the application of best available control
technology.\7\ See 76 FR 43490. EPA incorporated the biomass deferral
into the regulations governing state programs and into the federal PSD
program by amending the definition of ``subject to regulation'' under
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 respectively. The deferral is intended to be a
temporary measure, in effect for no more than three years, to allow EPA
time to conduct detailed examination of the science and technical
issues related to accounting for biogenic CO2 emissions, and
determine what, if any, treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions
should be in the PSD and title V programs. The deferral applies only to
biogenic CO2 emissions and does not affect non-greenhouse
gas (GHG) pollutants or other GHGs (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide)
emitted from the combustion of biomass fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On June 3, 2010, EPA promulgated the GHG Tailoring Rule
(which include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) which
tailored the applicability criteria that determine which GHG
emission sources become subject to the PSD program of the CAA. EPA
established in the GHG Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD
applicability and established the first two steps of the phase-in
for the largest GHG emitters. See 75 FR 31514. Please refer to the
July 12, 2012, rulemaking finalizing GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3. See
77 FR 41051. On January 13, 2011, EPD submitted a SIP revision to
EPA to IBR into the Georgia SIP (at 391-3-1-.02(7)), the version of
40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010, which included the GHG Tailoring
Rule thresholds. EPA took final action to approve Georgia's SIP
revision on September 8, 2011. See 76 FR 55572. Georgia's submittal
also revised the State's title V operating permit provisions (which
are not included in the federally approved SIP) to incorporate the
GHG Tailoring Rule provisions. As such, EPA did not take final
action to approve Georgia's update to its title V. As with the
Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses both PSD and title V
requirements. However, as part of this action EPA is only taking
action on Georgia's PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule

    EPA's Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule extends the Agency's March
31, 2010,\8\ stay of the original December 19, 2008, Fugitive Emissions
Rule reverting the CFR text back to the language that existed prior to
the December 19, 2008, Fugitive Emissions Rule changes regarding the
treatment of fugitive emissions.\9\ See 73 FR 77882. EPA plans to issue
a final rule affirming the interim rule as final. The final rule will
remain in effect until EPA completes its reconsideration of the Natural
Resource Defense Counsel's (NRDC) petition. See 78 FR 2872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ After granting NRDC petition for reconsideration of the
Fugitives Rule, EPA stayed the 2008 rule for 18 months to October 3,
2011 on March 31, 2010, allowing the Agency time to propose, take
comment and issue a final action regarding the inclusion of fugitive
emissions in NSR applicability determinations.
    \9\ The December 19, 2008, final rule required fugitive
emissions to be included in determining whether a physical or
operational change results in a major modification only for sources
in industries that have been designated through rulemaking under
section 302(j) of the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 302(j), examples
of these industry sectors include oil refineries, Portland cement
plants, and iron and steel mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision

    EPA's PM2.5 grandfather provision (established in the
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule) allowed PSD applicants that submitted a
complete permit application prior to July 15, 2008, to continue relying
upon the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy rather than amend their
application to demonstrate compliance directly with the new
PM2.5 requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On January 13, 2011,
Georgia submitted a SIP revision to IBR into the Georgia SIP the
version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 3, 2010 which included language that
excluded the grandfathering exemption (at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi)) from
the state's PSD regulations (at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i)) ensuring
that sources were not subject to the grandfathering provision. EPA
approved Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision on September 8, 2011
(76 FR 55572). On May 18, 2011, EPA repealed the PM2.5
grandfathering provision \10\ at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). See 76 FR
28646. Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal incorporates into the
Georgia SIP the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011, including
the May 18, 2011, repeal of the grandfather provision. Thus, the
PM2.5 grandfathering exclusion language previously approved
into Georgia's SIP at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i) is no longer
necessary. Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP submittal removes the
unnecessary language pertaining to the removal of the grandfather
provision from Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA
finalized regulations to establish the framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both
attainment and nonattainment areas including the grandfather
provision. See 73 FR 2832.
    \11\ Georgia's previous incorporation by reference of 40 CFR
52.21 at 391-3-1-.02(7) was as of June 3, 2010, which did not
include the May 18, 2011, repeal of the PM10 Surrogate
Policy; therefore the grandfathering exclusion language at 391-3-
1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i) was necessary at that time. The June 3, 2010, IBR
date was approved into the Georgia SIP on September 8, 2011. See 76
FR 55572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to updates to Rule 391-3-1-.02(7), the July 26, 2012,
SIP revision also (1) amends Georgia's definitions at 391-3-1-.01 by
revising subparagraph (nnnn) to reference the February 1, 2012, update
to Georgia's ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air
Pollutants;'' (2) revises Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)--Incinerators to add
exemptions to subparagraph (c)(6)(ix)-(xiii) to exempt certain
incinerators from the state rule that are subject to more stringent,
state adopted federal standards at Rule 391-3-1.02; and (3) modifies
Georgia's provisions at Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(4) regarding permit
exemptions. Georgia's September 26, 2006, SIP (with a clarifying
revision submitted on November 6, 2006) revises the permit exemption
provisions at Rule 391-1-.03(6)(i)(3). Both 391-3-1-.03(6)(1)(3) and
the provision at (i)(4) provide exemptions from the requirement of a
source to obtain a SIP permit for cumulative modifications where the
combined emission increases are below specific de minimis
thresholds.\12\ See 78 FR 2872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The September 26, 2006, SIP revision to Rule 391-3-
1-.03(6)(i)(3) adds text that excludes contemporaneous emission
decreases from the combined emission increases for cumulative
modifications when determining if they are below specific emission
thresholds for carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter,
PM10, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic
compounds and any hazardous air pollutant applicable to any existing
source. The July 26, 2012, SIP revision, adds Rule 391-3-
1.03(6)(i)(4) which is an alternative to the exemption in (i)(3)
that only applies to small modifications at existing quarry sources
that are not major sources where the combined emission increases can
include contemporaneous emission decreases from all nonexempt
modified activities and are less than 10 tons per year of
particulate matter and PM10. Neither exemption may be
used to lower the potential to emit below ``major source''
thresholds, or avoid any ``applicable requirement'' as defined in 40
CFR 70.2. See Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve into the Georgia SIP portions
of the State's July 26, 2012 and September 26, 2006 (as clarified on
November 6, 2006) SIP revisions. Georgia's Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) IBR the
federal NSR PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 into the Georgia SIP. EPD's
July 26, 2012, SIP revision IBR the version of 40 CFR 52.21 at 391-3-
1-.02(7) as of July 20, 2011. By IBR the version of 40 CFR 52.21
effective on July 20, 2011, this revisions

incorporates into the Georgia SIP the numerical PM2.5 PSD
increments promulgated in the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule (pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA) at 40 CFR 52.21(c)
including the amendments to ``major source baseline date'' (at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c)); ``minor source baseline date'' and establishment
of the ``trigger date'' (40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(ii)(c)); and the
definition of ``baseline area'' (at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i) and (ii)).
Regarding the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions, in light of the
D.C. Circuit Court January 22, 2013, court order to remand and vacate
the SILs back to the Agency and vacate the SMC, EPA is not taking
action on the portion of the submittal containing the SILs or SMC.
    In addition, the July 26, 2012, submission IBR the CO2
Biomass Rule, thus deferring until July 21, 2014, the consideration of
``biogenic CO2 emissions'' when determining whether a
stationary source meets the PSD and title V applicability thresholds by
updating the definition for ``subject to regulation.'' The submission
IBR date as serves to include in the Georgia SIP the extension of the
stay in the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule.
    The July 26, 2012, SIP submission also (1) IBR the May 18, 2011,
repeal of the PM2.5 grandfathering provision thereby
removing the unnecessary grandfathering exclusion language from Rule
391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(6)(i); (2) amends Georgia's definition at 391-3-1-.01
subparagraph (nnnn) ``Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of
Air Pollutants;'' (3) revises Georgia's incinerator regulations at 391-
3-1-.02(2) by adding exemptions to subparagraphs (c)(6)(ix)-(xiii) to
exempt certain incinerators from the state rule that are subject to
more stringent, state adopted federal standards at Rule 391-3-1.02; and
(4) modifies Georgia's provisions at Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)(i)(4)
regarding permit exemptions.
    Lastly, EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's September
26, 2006, SIP submission (as clarified on November 6, 2006) which
revises the permit exemption provisions at Rule 391-1-.03(6)(i)(3). The
changes to Georgia's rules submitted September 26, 2006 (as clarified
on November 6, 2006) and July 26, 2012, became state effective on March
27, 2006, and August 9, 2012, respectively. EPA is taking final action
to approve changes mentioned above in the July 26, 2012, and September
26, 2006, SIP revisions to update the State's existing SIP-approved PSD
program to be consistent with federal NSR regulations (at 40 CFR 52.21)
and the CAA as well as changes to Air Quality Rules 391-3-1-.01, .02(2)
and .03.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the January 14, 2013, proposed
rulemaking from GreenLaw (hereafter referred to as the ``Commenter'').
A copy of these comments can be found in the docket for today's
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov using docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-
0622. The Commenter submitted three comments one of which supports
EPA's proposed January 14, 2013, actions to approve the
PM2.5 PSD Increments, Surrogate Policy repeal and extension
of the Fugitives Emissions Rule stay into the Georgia SIP in accordance
with the CAA. EPA appreciates the Commenter's support of the Agency's
action to ensure Georgia's PSD permitting program is consistent with
federal NSR permitting requirements. To the extent that the comments
supported EPA's proposed actions, and the final actions being taken
today, EPA need not provide a response to those comments. A summary of
and response to the comments potentially adverse to today's action is
provided below.
    Comment: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve a SIP
submittal that includes the PM2.5 SMC and SILs. The
Commenter cites to the D.C. Circuit Court's January 22, 2013, court
decision which vacated and remanded back to EPA the SILs and vacated
the SMC citing the monitoring provisions exceeded EPA's authority.
Further, the Commenter affirms that the changes proposed for approval
simply change the date of incorporation by reference but that EPA
should clarify in its final rulemaking that it is ``denying approval''
of SILs and SMCs into the Georgia SIP.
    Response: With regard to the PM2.5 SILs, EPA never
proposed approval of Georgia's submission as to those provisions. As a
result, EPA is not now taking any action regarding Georgia's
PM2.5 SILs submission. With regard to the PM2.5
SMC provisions, EPA did propose approval of those provisions but in
light of the D.C. Circuit's January 22, 2013, court order, EPA is not
now taking final action on EPA's January 14, 2013, proposal regarding
Georgia's PM2.5 SMC submission. EPA will consider Georgia's
January 26, 2012, SIP revision (and EPA's previous proposal) with
regard to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC thresholds in an action
separate from today's rulemaking.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve, into the Georgia SIP,
portions of Georgia's September 26, 2006 (as clarified on November 6,
2006) and July 26, 2012, SIP revisions adopting federal regulations
amended in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-
SMC rule; the June 3, 2010, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule; and
the March 30, 2011, Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule, amendments
regarding the PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision, definition
changes regarding testing and monitoring, and changes regarding
exemptions from the requirement to obtain a SIP permit and exemptions
for incinerators. EPA is taking final action to approve these
aforementioned changes to Georgia's SIP because they are consistent
with section 110 of the CAA and current EPA regulations regarding NSR
permitting.
    EPA is not, however, taking final action to approve in this
rulemaking the portion of Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision
incorporating the PM2.5 SILs and SMC thresholds and
provisions promulgated in EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule. EPA is also not taking final action to approve in this rulemaking
Rules 391-3-1-.02(www)--Sewage Sludge Incineration, 391-3-1-.03(9)--
Permit Fees, 391-3-1-.02(8)(b)--New Source Performance Standards and
391-3-1-.02(9)(b)--Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
which were included in Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision, but are
not part of Georgia's SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 10, 2013. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 27, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart (L)--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570 is amended in the paragraph (c) table by revising the
entries for ``391-3-1-.01,'' ``391-3-1.02(2)(c),'' ``391-3-1.02(7)''
and ``391-3-1.03'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          State citation                Title/subject      effective date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.01.......................  Definitions..........          8/9/12  4/9/13 [Insert citation of
                                                                            publication].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.02(2)....................                                                   Emission Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1.02(2)(c)..................  Incinerators.........          8/9/12  4/9/13 [Insert citation of
                                                                            publication].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.02(7)....................  Prevention of                  8/9/12  4/9/13 [Insert citation of              As of 4/9/13 EPA is approving a
                                     Significant                            publication].                           revision to 391-3-1-.02(7) to
                                     Deterioration of Air                                                           incorporate by reference the version
                                     Quality (PSD).                                                                 of 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 20, 2011.
                                                                                See [Insert citation of publication]
                                                                                with the exception of the PM2.5 SMC
                                                                                and SILs thresholds and provisions
                                                                                promulgated in the October 20, 2010
                                                                                PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule at
                                                                                40 CFR 52.21(i)(5) and (k)(2)
                                                                                respectively.
                                                                                September 9, 2011(76 FR 55572)--
                                                                                Georgia's PSD Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)
                                                                                incorporates by reference the
                                                                                regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 as
                                                                                of June 3, 2010, with changes. This
                                                                                EPA action is approving the
                                                                                incorporation by reference with the
                                                                                exception of the following
                                                                                provisions: (1) The provisions
                                                                                amended in the Ethanol Rule (72 FR
                                                                                24060) which exclude facilities that
                                                                                produce ethanol through a natural
                                                                                fermentation process from the
                                                                                definition of ``chemical process
                                                                                plants'' in the major NSR source
                                                                                permitting program found at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1(iii)(t);
                                                                                and (2) the administrative
                                                                                regulations amended in the Fugitive
                                                                                Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882).
                                                                                Additionally, this EPA action is not
                                                                                approving the ``automatic rescission
                                                                                clause'' provision at 391-3-
                                                                                1.02(7)(a)2.(iv).
                                                                                This rule contains NOX as a precursor
                                                                                to ozone for PSD and NSR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.03.......................  Permits..............          8/9/12  4/9/13 [Insert citation of              Changes specifically to (8)--Permit
                                                                            publication].                           Requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-07978 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 163-166]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31371]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71189; File No. SR-BOX-2013-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Short Term Options Program

December 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 20, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 interpretive material to Rule 5050
(Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) and Rule 6090 (Terms of
Index Options Contracts) to allow the Exchange to list five Short Term
Option Series at one time, and to specify that new series of Short Term
Option Series may be listed up to, and including on, the expiration
date. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-6 to Rule 5050 (Series of
Options Contracts Open for Trading) and IM-6090-2 to Rule 6090 (Terms
of Index Options Contracts) to allow the Exchange to list five Short
Term Option Series at one time, and to specify that new series of Short
Term Option Series may be listed up to, and including on, the
expiration date. This is a competitive filing that is based on a
proposal recently submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') and approved by the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71005 (December 6,
2013), 78 FR 75395 (December 11, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-096) (Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently the Exchange's Rules allow it to list options in the
Short Term Option (``STO'' or ``weekly'') Program ``on each of the next
five consecutive Fridays that are business days.'' \4\ The filing which
gave the Exchange authority to list five STO expirations specifically
states that ``the total number of consecutive expirations will be five,
including any existing monthly or quarterly expirations.'' \5\ The
Exchange is now proposing to amend its rules so that the next five STOs
may be listed at one time, not including the monthly or quarterly
options. The Exchange is also proposing to codify an existing practice
by adding language stating that strikes may be listed up until and on
the day of expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See IM-5050-6 to Rule 5050 and IM-6090-2 to Rule 6090.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68361 (December 5,
2012), 77 FR 73729 (December 11, 2012) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of SR-BOX-2012-020 which was a rule filing
based on approved filings submitted by NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT,
LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange will have the ability to list a total of
five STO expirations and that count of five would not include monthly
or quarterly option expirations. The Exchange notes that this proposal
would restrict the five listed STOs to those closest to the STO opening
date. For example, if a class of options has five STOs listed with
expiration dates in July, the other two listed expiration dates may not
be in December. The Exchange believes that allowing otherwise would
undermine the purpose of the STO Program.
    As examples of how this would work in practice, consider a
situation in which a quarterly option expires week 1 and a monthly
option expires week 3 from now, the proposal would allow the following
expirations: Week 1 quarterly option, week 2 weekly option, week 3
monthly option, week 4 weekly option, week 5 weekly option, week 6
weekly option, and week 7 weekly option.\6\ As another example, if a
quarterly option expires week 3 and a monthly option expires week 5,
the following expirations would be allowed: Week 1 weekly option, week
2 weekly option, week 3 quarterly option, week 4 weekly option, week 5
monthly option, week 6 weekly option, week 7 weekly option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposal would not allow, for example, for nothing to be
listed week 7 but week 8 a weekly option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange is proposing to add language to IM-5050-6(b)(4)
and IM-6090-2(b)(4) to state that additional STO series may be added up
to, and including on, the expiration date of the series.\7\ Currently,
Exchange rules state that the Exchange may open up to 20 initial
series, and up to 10 additional series, for each option class that
participates in the STO Program.\8\ The Exchange's rules, however, are
silent on when series may be added. In practice, however, the Exchange,
along with the other exchanges, list additional series until the
expiration day.\9\ The Exchange believes that codifying this practice
will clarify authority that is not currently explicitly stated in its
rules to add series up until the day of expiration. Given the short
lifespan of STOs, the Exchange believes that the ability to list new
series of options intraday is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange is also proposing to add language stating that
the proposed provisions in IM-5050-6 and IM-6090-2 will not
contradict current provisions in the Exchange's Rules. More
specifically, the proposed provisions would not contradict Rules
5050(c) and 6090(c)(2) respectively. The Exchange believes this
addition will eliminate any confusion about when additional series
may be added in the STO Program in comparison to other Exchange
listing programs.
    \8\ See IM-5050-6(b)(3) and (4) to Rule 5050, and IM-6090-
2(b)(3) and (4) to Rule 6090.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') has the ability to accommodate series in the STO Program
added intraday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the STO Program has been very well-received
by market participants, in particular by retail investors. The Exchange
believes that the current proposed revision to the STO Program will
permit the Exchange to meet increased customer demand and provide
market participants with the ability to hedge in a greater number of
option classes and series. In addition, the proposed changes will
codify an existing practice in the Exchange's rules.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\10\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and
the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement
that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that expanding the STO Program
will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions. The Exchange
also believes that expanding the STO Program will provide the investing
public and other market participants with additional opportunities to
hedge their investments, thus allowing these investors to better manage
their risk exposure.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this current amendment to the STO Program. The Exchange believes that
its Participants will not have a capacity issue as a result of this
proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this
expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes the proposal is pro-competitive. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by the CBOE
that was recently approved by the Commission.\13\ The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition
among the options exchanges with respect to STO Programs. Moreover, the
Exchange believes this proposed rule change will benefit investors by
providing additional methods to trade options on liquid securities, and
by providing greater ability to mitigate risk in managing large
portfolios. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors would
benefit from the introduction and availability of additional series for
investment, and as an additional tool for hedging risk in highly liquid
securities. For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and
believes the proposed change will enhance competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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 for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will
promote fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange
to list additional STO expirations in the same manner as the CBOE, and
by clarifying that, like the CBOE, the Exchange may list new STO series
up to, and including on, the expiration date. The Exchange also stated
that it would be at a competitive disadvantage if it were not allowed
to adopt the proposed rule changes contemporaneously with other
exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to remain
competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2013-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-60. 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-BOX-2013-60 and should be submitted on or before January
23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Lynn Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31371 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 8524]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04208]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9043-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 02/25/2019 Through 03/01/2019
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20190019, Draft, USFS, MT, Custer Gallatin Forest Plan
Revision, Comment Period Ends: 06/06/2019, Contact: Mariah Leuschen
406-587-6735.
EIS No. 20190021, Draft, UDOT, UT, I-15 Mile Post 11 Interchange,
Comment Period Ends: 04/22/2019, Contact: Elisa Albury<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20190022, Draft Supplement, BLM, NV, Mount Hope Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 04/
22/2019, Contact: Kevin Hurrell<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice:

EIS No. 20190020, Final, USFS, CA, WITHDRAWN--Exchequer Restoration
Project, Review Period Ends: 04/01/2019, Contact: Elaine Locke 559-855-
5355.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/01/2019; Officially Withdrawn
per request of the submitting agency.

    Dated: March 5, 2019.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2019-04208 Filed 3-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		7/14/14

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

FROM:	Michael Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	7/14/2014 Meeting with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A conference call was held between EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on July 14, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Diana Esher, Air Protection Division
Brian Rehn, Air Protection Division
Mike Gordon, Air Protection Division
Emily Linn, Air Protection Division
Kevin Culligan, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Debra Dalcher, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David Solomon, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Lora Strine, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Brian Fisher, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Joe Bryson, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Office of Policy Analysis and Review
Denise Mulholland, Office of Atmospheric Programs

Joyce Epps, PADEP
Robert Reiley, PADEP
Krish Ramamurthy, PADEP
Craig Evans, PADEP
Sean Wenrich, PADEP
Charles Boritz, PADEP
Robert Cook, PADEP
Mark Brojakowski, PADEP
Joe Sherrick, PADEP


November 17, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211

FROM: Robert Anderson, Environmental Protection Specialist,
EPA/OAR/OTAQ/CISD

RE: Preliminary Data from Tier DOE Catalyst Durability Program (V4/CRC
E-87-2)

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet that contains preliminary data from the
DOE Catalyst Durability Test Program also referred to as the DOE V4
program or the CRC E-87-2 program.  These data are preliminary results
for the non-Tier 2 vehicle portion of the test program.

The enclosed spreadsheet contains all data for non-Tier 2 vehicles
submitted to EPA from DOE as of November 17, 2010.  It should be noted
that these data are preliminary and therefore, subject to change based
on ongoing QA/QC.

For more information, please contact Robert Anderson at either
HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(202) 343-9718.