Facilities demonstrating compliance with the PBCO for process units equipped with any wet control device that effects HAP emissions must test prior to the wet control device. We added the following definition of " wet control device" to the final rule to clarify that these add on technologies cannot be used to meet the PBCO:

Wet control device means any equipment that uses water as a means of collecting an air pollutant. Wet control devices include scrubbers, wet electrostatic precipitators, and electrified filter beds. Wet control devices do not include biofilters or other equipment that destroys or degrades hazardous air pollutants.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 55 requested changes to the definition of " control system" so that facilities with certain types of add on control devices could still comply using the PBELs. The commenter specifically requested that the definition of an " add on control system"

exclude those " control systems" that are designed for the primary purposes of capturing and using alternative sources of fuel and preventing potential storm water impacts. The commenter described a " steam collapse system" that condenses steam from the particleboard press exhaust and then routes the condensate to an onsite wastewater treatment system. The remaining noncondensed gases exiting the steam collapse system are then routed to an onsite boiler where they are combusted as supplemental fuel. The heating value of the gases was reported to be 700 BTU per standard cubic foot. The commenter noted that both the steam collapse system and the boiler reduce HAP emissions, and thus meet the proposed definition of control device, which means that the mills would have to demonstrate compliance using the either the add on control system compliance options or emissions averaging. The commenter further noted that the add on control system compliance options would require the installation of a PTE, which the commenter believes would result in negligible emission reductions and would cause operational difficulties as well as a fire hazard. For these reasons, the commenter recommended that the definition of an 2 95 " add on control device" be adjusted to refer only to those capture and control devices for which the removal of HAP is the primary goal.

Response: The definition of " control system or add on control system" refers to the combination of capture and control devices used to reduce HAP. The commenter's concern relates to the definition of " control device." The definition of " control device" in the final PCWP rule includes condensers and combustion units that incinerate process exhausts. For purposes of MACT standard development, the reason a control device was installed is immaterial. All control devices or techniques that reduce HAP emissions are considered when setting MACT standards.

The PBCOs were developed and included in the PCWP rule for inherently low emitting process units or process units with pollution prevention, not for process units with add on control devices ( see Section 2.6.3 for more details on the development of the PBCOs). Emissions data for the outlet of APCD ( including wet control devices) were not used in developing the PBCOs. The control system described by the commenter is an add on control system which cannot be used to comply with the PBCO ( unless emissions measured prior to the steam collapse system meet the PBCO, indicating that the press is a low emitting press without add on control). Even though the PBCO is not an available compliance option for the outlet of the commenter's control system,

there are six add on control device compliance options plus emissions averaging in the final PCWP rule. We disagree that an enclosure around the press would result in operational problems and fire hazard; enclosures have been successfully installed around particleboard presses. The final PCWP rule defines design criteria for wood products enclosures, and also allows for partial enclosures as long as the overall emission reduction is achieved. Wood products enclosures, as defined in the final rule, are assumed to achieve 100 percent capture; however, partial wood products enclosures must be tested to determine capture efficiency. To determine the percent reduction associated with the commenter's control system, testing would likely need to be conducted prior to the steam collapse system and after the boiler. Additional information on incineration of process exhausts is provided in Section 2.7.12.

2.5.3 Regenerative thermal and catalytic oxidizers <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 34, IV D 35, IV D 47, and IV D 50 requested that EPA reevaluate the benefits of RTO and RCO control devices. The commenters contended that many of these units currently in use are not meeting their design destruction efficiency. 2 96 Commenters IV D 34 and IV D 35 argued that EPA did not take in to account the lack of industry experience with incineration based control technologies when proposing the rule and suggested that EPA re evaluate these technologies in light of recent experience to ensure that the units are truly capable of meeting the emissions requirements. Commenter IV D 50 further argued that RTOs and RCOs are unable to satisfactorily treat press emissions that have low concentrations of VOCs.

Response: We disagree that the PCWP industry does not have experience with RTOs and RCOs. Responses to our PCWP general survey conducted in 1998 indicated that there were 90 of these types of control devices in use on various PCWP process units. 10 Several additional RTOs and RCOs have been installed on PCWP processes since the 1998 survey. 18,19 Our data show that RTOs and RCOs in the PCWP industry routinely achieve 90 percent HAP reduction efficiency regardless of whether these controls are installed on presses, dryers, or a combination of PCWP process units. 20 We note that we have not established standards more stringent than 90 percent reduction to account for units that may not meet their design destruction efficiency; we believe that 90 percent reduction represents the level of control that is continuously achieved accounting for inherent variability over time.

2.5.4 Biofilters <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 27 requested that the proposed definition of biofilter be modified so that rotating biological disk biofilters will meet the definition of biofilter. The suggested changes to the definition are as follows ( additions are in italics and deletions are in strikeout format):

Biofilter means an enclosed control system such as a tank or series of tanks with a fixed roof that are filled with contact emissions with a solid media ( such as bark) and use microbiological activity to transform organic pollutants in a process exhaust stream to innocuous compounds such as carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts. Wastewater treatment systems such as aeration lagoons or activated sludge systems are not considered to be biofilters.

Response: We agree with the suggested change and have modified the definition of biofilter in the final rule as requested.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 34, IV D 35, and IV D 47 stated that more investigation into biofilters is needed before they are considered a viable alternative. These 2 97 commenters contended that the large space requirements associated with biofilters would preclude their use at many PCWP facilities, because many of these facilities lack sufficient open property on which to site a biofilter.

Response: Facilities are free to choose whatever control technology works best for their facility ( provided that the technology meets the compliance options) based on site specific concerns such as the process unit to be controlled and available space. Biofilters are a viable alternative for some facilities. Biofilters have been used successfully to control press emissions,

and our data show that biofilters can achieve HAP reductions of 90 percent or greater. Biofilters are available in different designs including some modular designs which may be easier to retrofit at facilities with less available space. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that some facilities simply do not have the space to install a biofliter and therefore must use a control technology with a smaller footprint ( e. g., RTO, RCO, or incineration in an onsite combustion unit).

2.5.5 Availability of APCDs <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 19, IV D 27, and IV D 48 requested that the deadline for existing sources to come into compliance with the PCWP rule be extended.

Commenter IV D 27 recommended that sources installing incineration based equipment or equivalent emissions control technology be granted a one year extension because of the limited availability of qualified and financially viable vendors for add on control systems. The commenter contended that most affected PCWP plants will choose to install RTOs rather than RCOs or biofilters because RTOs can be used in more situations and applications than an RCO or biofilter.

The commenter also noted that the use of a process combustion unit as an incineration based control device would be limited by the amount of airflow that can be controlled and by safety concerns.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that there are four main challenges facing the PCWP industry under a three year compliance schedule. First, a large majority of the companies that provide RTOs, RCOs, and biofilters to the wood products industry are relatively new, small businesses with relatively low capitalization. Because less than a handful of vendors have capitalization substantial enough both to support installation and to honor their warranties and guarantees, there will be numerous facilities competing for a limited number of experienced contractors in order to meet the standards at the same time. Commenter IV D 48 agreed, noting that both PCWP 2 98 facilities and equipment suppliers dislike the short three year time period to perform initial compliance testing, select and install control equipment if needed, and perform post compliance testing. Because of this schedule, facilities may be unable to install equipment from their first choice of supplier and may have to resort to second, third, or fourth choices. Second, there are a limited number of fabricators that the vendors can choose as subcontractors, and they are usually small businesses. Third, there are several MACT standards scheduled to be released over the next year, and any that require incineration based add on controls will further increase the demand on the limited resources of the vendors and fabricators. Fourth, the typical biofilter vendor only has one or two installed systems and will propose a newer, often untested version. As a result,

biofilter vendors provide even more compliance and cost risks then the RTO/ RCO vendors.

Commenter IV D 27 also noted that " over two thirds" of the vendors who installed the RTOs and RCOs included in the MACT floor determination have gone bankrupt in the past four years.

Commenter IV D 27 provided a summary of problems experienced by a PCWP company that recently contracted with a vendor to fabricate and install multiple RTOs/ RCOs. In this situation, the vendor declared bankruptcy after only one RCO was installed, forcing the PCWP company to negotiate contracts with each subcontractor directly to complete the construction and installation of the remaining RTOs. The PCWP company also lost the money that had been prepaid to the vendor. In addition, the RCO " barely met" the required THC destruction efficiency and has had ongoing problems meeting opacity limits. For the reasons stated above, the commenter requested that the compliance deadline either be extended by one year or that a staggered compliance schedule for the sources affected by the standards be implemented. The commenter suggested that individual companies be granted the option to comply within 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, as long as the average compliance duration does not exceed four years. The commenter stated that a staggered compliance schedule would smooth out demand; enhance the economic viability of the vendor segment; eliminate the need to make case by case extension determinations; and provide efficient, effective, and reliable compliance options for the industry.

The commenter also argued that sources choosing pollution prevention should be granted an extension to the compliance schedule to provide the time needed for the development and implementation of these innovative approaches. The commenter noted that add on controls have multiple environmental disbenefits, including significant increases in energy use and greenhouse 2 99 gas emissions, so pollution prevention should be encouraged whenever possible. The commenter agreed that pollution prevention options are not widely used by the PCWP industry but noted that the industry has placed a priority on developing pollution prevention techniques. Because pollution prevention projects are more complex, more time consuming, and potentially more capital intensive than simply installing add on controls, the commenter contended that more compliance time would be necessary. However, with a three year compliance deadline, the commenter stated that only the add on control system approach is viable on a widespread basis.

The commenter suggested adding four years to the compliance deadline, for a total of seven years, to address the challenges with implementing pollution prevention options. The commenter suggested that EPA could require facilities that implement this approach to declare their commitment to do so within two years after promulgation of the rule and provide annual progress reports to identify progress towards those goals.

Commenter IV D 19 supported Commenter IV D 27' s recommendation for a one year extension for plants installing incineration based control and the three year extension for plants choosing pollution prevention. Commenter IV D 19 also recommended that any facility choosing a control technology that does not require natural gas be granted a one year compliance extension. To qualify for the last option, a facility would have to demonstrate that transporting either natural gas or propane to the site would be technically and/ or economically impractical.

Response: Section 112( i)( 3) of the CAA states that "( A) After the effective date of any emissions standard, ... in the case of an existing source, the Administrator shall establish a compliance date or dates for each category or subcategory of existing sources, which shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard, except as provided in subparagraph ( B)... "( B) The Administrator ( or a State with a program approved under title V) may issue a permit that grants an extension permitting an existing source up to 1 additional year to comply with standards under subsection ( d) if such additional period is necessary for the installation of controls."

Thus, we are allowing the full length of time permitted by the CAA ( i. e., three years as opposed to a shorter time frame) for compliance with the PCWP rule. At this point, based on available information, we disagree that a compliance extension is needed for installation of APCD or for implementation of pollution prevention measures. The three year compliance date for the final rule is projected in 2007 ( assuming publication of the final rule in 2004). As of April 2000, we 2 100 estimated that 26 percent of facilities were already using the control technologies needed to meet the final PCWP rule. In addition, many facilities have installed controls since April 2000. The final PCWP rule contains various compliance options, some of which will reduce the number or size of controls needed to meet the rule ( e. g., PBCOs, emissions averaging). In addition, different types of add on APCDs can be used to meet the final rule ( e. g., RTO, RCO, incineration of process exhaust in an onsite combustion unit, biofilter).

Even conservatively assuming that incineration based controls are selected by all facilities for compliance with the PCWP rule, we are not convinced that there are not enough vendors to handle the remaining demand for incineration based control devices during the three years following promulgation of the PCWP rule. A review of journal articles and Internet webpages revealed at least 10 incineration based control device vendors currently in operation that have experience installing controls at PWCP facilities and that appear to be capable of handling multiple installation requests simultaneously. Six other companies have experience with the industry, but it is unclear if they have the ability to handle the same number of simultaneous orders as the 10 top quality vendors. About 12 additional companies have experience manufacturing and installing incineration based controls, but they do not have experience with the PCWP industry.

Eleven different vendors were responsible for installing the 89 incineration based control devices listed in the MACT survey results. Four of these eleven vendors have gone out of business in the last few years, but all of them have been purchased or otherwise acquired by another company.

Three of the vendors were acquired by two of the 10 top quality vendors mentioned above. The fourth vendor was recently purchased by an environmental technology company with experience in pollution control for the pulp and paper industry and is now considered one of the six smallercapacity vendors. A fifth company which installed four of the RTOs reported in the PCWP survey, is still operating, but the company appears to be focusing on mist eliminators and scrubbers.

The available information does not support the commenter's claim that two thirds of the vendors responsible for installations considered in the MACT floor determination have gone bankrupt in the past four years. Four of 11 vendors of incineration based control devices reported in the MACT survey responses have gone out of business. These four vendors represented 69 percent of the installations that were reported in the MACT survey and considered 2 101 in determining the MACT floor, which may have been the basis for the commenter's claim.

However, since all of the vendors that closed are now back in business, the number of bankrupt vendors is no longer relevant. Although four APCD vendors may no longer operate as independent companies, their products and designs are still available, and they have become part of larger corporations, which will increase their stability. As a result, there appear to be enough vendors to handle all of the orders for incineration based control devices. 21 Facilities concerned about having their first choice supplier should submit their equipment contracts early in the threeyear compliance time frame. In any event, individual sources will be able, consistent with the language of section 112( i)( 3)( B), to present their own claims of need for additional time to install controls to permitting authorities.

We further disagree that control technologies that do not use natural gas require a one year extension. Facilities can use any control technology that meets the standards based on their site specific needs. Control technologies ( including those that use natural gas and those that do not) are available for installation within the three year compliance time frame, and therefore, it is not necessary to extend the compliance date.

We wish to encourage pollution prevention, as evident from our inclusion of PBCOs in the PCWP rule. We acknowledge that there are significant challenges in implementing pollution prevention measures, and that currently there are no widespread HAP pollution prevention measures used in the PCWP industry. It is not known if an additional four years of research would identify pollution prevention measures. We do not wish to allow facilities up to four years after the compliance date to ponder potential pollution prevention measures, only to then decide after four years to install an add on APCD. Moreover, section 112( i)( 3) provides no authority for such a lengthy compliance extension solely due to the wish to explore currently unidentified and un demonstrated pollution prevention measures. Even if it were allowed under the CAA, we disagree that a four year extension of the compliance date is appropriate in this rulemaking, since as reflected in our MACT floor determinations, it does not appear that there are any pollution prevention measures that could be universally applied across the industry.

While we believe that the need for a blanket compliance extension is not necessary for most facilities, we note that section 112( i)( 3)( B) allows facilities to petition permitting authorities for a case by case extension of the compliance date of up to one year if such an extension is 2 102 necessary for installation of controls. Thus, facilities facing exceptional difficulty obtaining the technology necessary to comply with the final rule have an avenue for obtaining a compliance extension based on their site specific circumstances, which could include the adoption of demonstrated pollution prevention measures that achieve MACT levels of performance but that cannot be implemented by the 3 year compliance date.

2.6 COMPLIANCE OPTIONS 2.6.1 Multiple compliance options <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 45 pointed out that although EPA has presented several compliance options, there are so many restrictions on each one that many facilities may only have one choice for compliance. The commenter asserted that a facility without add on controls cannot choose the emissions averaging compliance option, and that a facility with add on controls cannot choose the PBCO.

Commenter IV D 03 questioned whether or not it would be possible under current regulations to apply different compliance options to process units with multiple emission points.

The commenter specifically referred to multistage tube dryers, which have multiple emission points but are defined as one process unit under the proposed rule.

Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that there are too many restrictions on the compliance options and maintain that the final PCWP rule provides maximum compliance flexibility for PCWP sources subject to this NESHAP. The proposal preamble states in 63.2240 that " You cannot use multiple compliance options for a single process unit. ( For example, you cannot use a production based compliance option for one vent of a veneer dryer and an add on control system compliance option for another vent on the same veneer dryer. You must use either the production based compliance option or an add on control system compliance option for the entire dryer.)" However, this restriction does not apply to the PCWP facility as a whole, such that PCWP facilities have the flexibility of complying with different options for different process units. For example, a PCWP facility may choose to comply with a PBCO for one of their presses, comply with an add on control systems option for one dryer, and include another dryer in an emissions averaging plan with a blender ( e. g., control blender emissions and apply no controls to the dryer emissions, or undercontrol emissions from both units.). Also, the 2 103 final rule has modified language in § 63.2240 to clarify that the restriction regarding application of multiple compliance options does not apply to individual process units complying solely with the add on control system compliance options ( see response to comment No. <IP_ADDRESS>)]

Regarding other restrictions noted by the commenter, the emissions averaging provisions require that credit generating sources be equipped with add on controls because determining the actual emission reduction from pollution prevention techniques can be very difficult and contentious, and other compliance options are available to accommodate pollution prevention techniques ( i. e., PBCOs). We also note that debit generating sources may be uncontrolled or under controlled process units in an emissions averaging plan. Thus, emissions averaging plans will include a mix of controlled, uncontrolled, and undercontrolled process units. Regarding the restrictions on the use of PBCOs, we developed these options specifically to address the need for compliance alternatives for the future development of pollution prevention techniques. The use of the PBCOs is not allowed for process units equipped with add on controls. We also note that sources equipped with add on control systems have six compliance options available to them in addition to the option of being part of an emissions averaging plan. ( See also responses to comments <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.)

Regarding application of multiple compliance options to multistage tube dryers, we note that, unlike the proposed rule, the final rule distinguishes between primary and secondary tube dryers ( see response to comment <IP_ADDRESS>). Therefore, a PCWP facility may select different compliance options for the primary and secondary tube dryers.

2.6.2 Add on control systems compliance options <IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 19 supported multiple compliance options for addon control systems because of the flexibility. However, another commenter ( IV D 04) argued that the use of multiple compliance options for add on control systems will make it difficult to determine if a facility is actually in compliance. The commenter pointed out that, according to the preamble, if a facility tested for two options but passed only one, they would still be in compliance. However, if a facility chose to only test for one option and then failed that test, it is unclear if EPA would consider that facility to be in violation or if another test could be run for a different option. The commenter stated that in that situation, they would contend that there had been a violation of the standard, and any retesting to determine compliance with a different option 2 104 would not reverse the initial violation. Therefore, the commenter requested that EPA clarify that the option to use the " most beneficial" results of two or more test methods applies only when these tests are conducted during a single performance test. According to the commenter, any facility that chose to use only one test method during the compliance test would have to accept the results of that test.

Commenters IV D 27 and IV D 21 argued that a facility should be able to switch between the six add on control options as needed to maintain compliance. To illustrate the necessity of the ability to switch from one add on control option to another, the commenters provided an example whereby the operator of a veneer dryer might want to demonstrate compliance with the 90 percent THC reduction option ( option 1) under certain operating conditions and with the 20 ppmv THC option ( option 2) under other operating conditions. Commenter IV D 21 also noted that production starts, stops, and minor malfunctions are common at PCWP facilities, and most of them do not affect the performance of the air pollution control device. However, frequent SSM events resulting in a low concentration to the inlet of the control device could affect a facility's ability to comply with the percent reduction option. In this case, the commenter stated that the freedom to switch compliance options would be valuable. For these reasons, the commenters requested that EPA explicitly state in the PCWP rule that " a facility only need comply with any one of the six options at any one time, and that it can change between them as needed to fit process operating conditions."

Response: The proposed rule states that, " You cannot use multiple compliance options for a single process unit." We included this provision to prevent PCWP sources from partitioning emissions from a single process unit and then applying different control options to each portion of the emissions stream. The MACT floor determinations and compliance options were all based on the full flow of emissions from process units, and therefore, compliance options should be applied to the same mass of emissions to ensure that the required MACT floor emissions reductions are achieved. When including this restriction, we did not necessarily intend to limit PCWP facilities to only one of the six options for add on control systems. We did assume that each source would likely select only one, and that at any point in time for purposes of assessing compliance, the given compliance option will have been pre selected and reflected as applicable in the sources permit.

In fact, in discussions with industry representatives prior to proposal, they expressed concern that 2 105 the rule be written to make it clear that a source would only have to comply with one option and not all six.

Based on available data, we expect that most facilities will be able to demonstrate compliance with more than one of the compliance options for add on control systems. When developing the six compliance options for add on control systems, it was our belief that PCWP facilities would conduct emissions testing ( e. g., inlet and outlet testing for THC, methanol, and formaldehyde over a range of operating temperatures) and then, based on the results of testing,

select the option that provides them with the most operating flexibility as well as an acceptable " compliance margin" ( i. e., select the option that they believe will be easiest for them to meet on a continuous basis under varying conditions). The operating parameter limit to be reflected in the sources permit ( e. g., temperature) would be based on the measurements made during the compliant test runs. For example, if test results show that a facility can achieve 90 percent reduction for formaldehyde, 92 percent reduction for methanol, and 94 percent reduction for THC, then the facility may decide to reduce THC emissions by 90 percent, since this option appears to provide the greatest compliance margin. The corresponding operating parameter level measured during the testing ( e. g., minimum average RTO temperature during a three run test)

would then be set as the operating limit in the permit for that source. In this example, if the RTO operating temperature drops below the operating limit, any subsequent retesting done by the facility would presumably be done based on the chosen compliance option ( e. g., reduce THC emissions by 90 percent). Determining compliance in this case is relatively straightforward.

However, we are aware that State agencies may simply refer to a NESHAP as part of a permit and not stipulate which compliance option the facility must meet. In these cases, we agree with commenter IV D 04 that compliance can be complicated when the referenced NESHAP contains multiple options, and that such a broad reference would not be adequate to identify the particular option ( and parameter operating limits) applicable to the source. We also agree with the commenter that, if a facility selects multiple options under the compliance options for add on control systems, then they should be required to conduct all necessary testing associated with compliance with the selected options. In addition, the facility should obtain permit terms reflecting these options as " alternate operating scenarios" that clearly identify at what points and under what conditions the different options apply, such that compliance can be determined during 2 106 a single time frame. For example, if the source wishes to include options 1, 3, and 5 in their permit, then they must perform inlet and outlet testing for THC, methanol, and formaldehyde anytime the State agency has reason to require a repeat performance test ( if all three options are simultaneously applicable), or test for the single applicable option that corresponds to the given time and condition ( if all the options apply as " alternate operating scenarios" under different conditions). With this approach, we would avoid situations where a facility retests to determine compliance with a compliance option, fails to demonstrate compliance with that option, and then conducts additional testing to determine compliance with other options that are not preestablished as applicable at a later date.

Because different States may wish to implement the final rule differently, the final rule does not specify that States must allow compliance with all 6 options " at any given time," and therefore, the specifics of compliance demonstrations and permit conditions for facilities that can meet multiple options for add on control systems will be left to the State agencies. However, as mentioned in the response to the previous comment ( No. <IP_ADDRESS>), the final rule clarifies our intentions regarding the use of multiple control options with respect to add on control systems versus the combining of control options for a single process unit. The language in § 63.2440 of the final rule has been modified as follows ( deletions in strikeout, additions in italics):

"... You cannot use multiple compliance options combine compliance options in paragraphs ( a), ( b) or ( c) for a single process unit. [ For example, you cannot use a production based compliance option in paragraph ( a) for one vent of a veneer dryer and an add on control system compliance option in paragraph ( b) for another vent on the same dryer.]"

We believe that this wording change clarifies our intention to prevent sources from applying different control options to different portions of the emissions from a single process unit, while leaving open the potential for PCWP facilities to be able to include multiple compliance options for add on control systems in a State permit. Although add on controls are used in emissions averaging plans to achieve full or partial control of emissions from a given process unit, the emissions from a single process unit cannot be parceled such that a portion of the emissions meets one of the add on control system compliance options and another portion is used as part of an emissions averaging plan. The final rule continues to state that sources must meet at least one of 2 107 the six options for add on control systems. Therefore, the final rule does not prevent sources from establishing multiple compliance options for add on control systems in their permits.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 stated that, if switching between the six add on control system compliance options is not allowed, then EPA must allow a long compliance averaging time. The commenters noted that the proposed rule does not specify any compliance averaging period for the add on control systems compliance options. The commenters contended that, even if a facility follows all of the guidelines to ensure continuous compliance, there will probably be short periods of time in which the inlet to the control device has a low HAP concentration and the facility does not meet the requirement of the compliance option, although they may meet the requirements of the " Indicators of Performance" section of the rule. The commenters stated that, if EPA chooses not to incorporate a long compliance averaging period, then the add on control system compliance options should only apply for initial certification testing, and thereafter, the operating requirements should apply. To demonstrate the necessity for the one week averaging period, commenter IV D 27 noted that a rotary dryer that normally meets the 90 percent THC removal condition may have compliance problems when dryer production is reduced because of problems elsewhere on the production line. The commenter explained that the generation rate of HAP emissions from rotary dryers is a strong function of the dryer inlet temperature. The inlet temperature is a function of the production rate.

The concentration of HAP in the dryer exhausts are doubly affected by reduced production rates because the air flow normally remains constant while the lbs/ unit production decreases with the lower inlet temperature. The commenter stated that, during periods of low production, the facility may be unable to meet any of the options for add on control devices, and thus could be found in violation of the standards.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that an averaging period needs to be specified to allow a manager to certify continuous compliance through a range of operating conditions. The commenter contended that the averaging period should be no shorter than one week to accommodate extended periods of operation where emission concentrations from the process are low. The commenter stated that the data used to establish the floor only included process units operating at maximum capacity and did not reflect the full operating range of the processes being tested. The commenter also pointed out that " at a very minimum, a 24 hour averaging period is 2 108 needed to recover from a three hour period with very low inlet emissions to the control device. If there is more than one period of low inlet concentrations, then a longer averaging period is needed."

Response: We disagree with the commenters' request to extend the averaging period for compliance testing and operating parameter monitoring. The " averaging period" for the initial performance test is three hours because the rule requires a minimum of three one hour test runs,

and the average of these three runs is used to determine compliance. Like the proposed rule, the final rule requires an initial performance test, and during that initial compliance test, the average value of the operating parameter ( e. g., temperature) is set as the operating limit. Because the performance test is based on the average of three one hour test runs, the operating limit value is also based on a three hour average. As noted in the response to the previous comment, sources may conduct multiple performance tests in order to establish an operating limit that provides them with the most operating flexibility. Following the initial compliance test( s), the facility is required to comply with the operating parameter limit. No additional performance testing is required.

However, if the facility expects to be operating under different conditions, such that maintaining the APCD at or above the minimum temperature would not ensure compliance with the chosen compliance option, then the facility can conduct additional testing under the different operating conditions to demonstrate compliance with a different compliance option and a different operating parameter limit that can be met under the alternate operating conditions. In such cases, the facility would need to be able to document when the source is operating under each set of conditions and maintain separate records for each operating scenario. We also note that option 2 under the compliance options for add on controls systems ( i. e., limit APCD outlet emissions of THC to 20 ppmvd) can be used to address situations where the inlet emissions are very low because there are no minimum inlet THC concentration requirements for this control option.

Because the performance tests are based on a three hour average and facilities are allowed to establish different operating parameter limits under different operating scenarios, the final rule retains the three hour averaging period for operating parameter limits. ( See also responses to related comments on compliance averaging periods in Section 2.7.)

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 03, IV D 19, IV D 21, and IV D 27 noted the apparent redundancy between options 3 and 4 and options 5 and 6 in Table 1B to Subpart DDDD 2 109 of the proposed rule ( Add on Control System Compliance Options). Commenters IV D 21 and IV D 27 stated that the preamble to the proposed rule implies that EPA did not intend for these options to be redundant, especially for streams with low HAP concentrations. The proposed preamble stated, "[ i] n general, applying an incineration based MACT control system to a process unit that emits high concentrations of HAP and THC will result in a greater percentage of emissions reductions than if that same incineration based MACT control system was applied to a process unit that emits lower concentrations of HAP and THC." The commenters noted that only options 3 and 5 actually state that they require 90 percent reduction of methanol and formaldehyde, but because options 4 and 6 require an inlet concentration of greater than 10 ppm and an outlet concentration of less than 1 ppm of the controlled HAP, all four of them technically require 90 percent destruction. Therefore, the commenters argued that the rule is contradictory in that it recognizes that streams with low concentrations are difficult to treat but still requires a high level of control for those streams.

To address the redundancy, the commenters suggested that options 4 and 6 be modified to allow lower control efficiencies for methanol and formaldehyde. Commenter IV D 27 provided a scatter plot of pollutant removal efficiency data versus inlet concentration for methanol and formaldehyde emissions treated with RTOs/ RCOs to show that some RTOs/ RCOs achieved less than a 90 percent reduction of methanol and formaldehyde when the inlet concentration of these pollutants was below 10 ppm. The commenter also provided RTO/ RCO inlet and outlet concentration data for methanol and formaldehyde. The inlet data ranged from approximately 1 ppm to 50 ppm, and the outlet data ranged from less than 1 ppm to approximately 6 ppm.

Commenter IV D 27 stated that, based on these data, most RTOs are capable of achieving an outlet formaldehyde concentration less than 2 ppm when the inlet concentration is less than 10 ppm and less than 1 ppm methanol when the inlet concentration of methanol is less than 10 ppm.

The commenter also stated that RCOs are only capable of meeting less than 3 ppm formaldehyde in the outlet, regardless of the inlet concentration. The commenter acknowledged EPA's concerns about circumvention of the rule by sources that would install controls that had little or no effect on HAP emissions if the rule did not contain minimum concentration requirements at the control device inlet for options 4 and 6. The commenters recommended that the minimum concentration requirements be retained, but at a lower value greater than or equal to the outlet 2 110 limit. Specifically, the commenters recommended the following modification to the wording in Table 1B to Subpart DDDD, Add on Control Systems Compliance Options:

( 4) Limit methanol emissions to less than or equal to 1 ppmvd, rounded to the nearest single significant digit, if uncontrolled methanol emissions entering the control device are greater than 1 ppm. *** ( 6) Limit formaldehyde emissions to less than or equal to 2 ppmvd, rounded to the nearest single significant digit, if uncontrolled methanol emissions entering the control device are greater than 2 ppm.

The commenter further noted that if a facility has emissions above the applicability limit for either methanol or formaldehyde but below for the other, it should be required to treat the HAP that is above the limit. If the emissions levels are both below the limit, then the facility can probably meet the requirements for the applicable PBCO.

Response: In other rules, we have historically addressed control device performance issues at varying concentrations by offering two control options   one in the form of a percent reduction and the other in the form of a maximum outlet concentration level   with the idea that well controlled sources could meet one or the other, but not always both. Due to the variability in PCWP emissions and relatively dilute streams, three " percent reduction" options and three " outlet concentration" options were provided in the proposed rule. The predominant pollutant emitted from PCWP sources is THC; however, options for the two predominant HAP, methanol and formaldehyde, were added for those sources that emitted these HAP in quantities sufficient to serve as a total HAP surrogate for determining control device performance. We elected not to require testing for total HAP because the two MACT technologies in use ( incineration and biofiltration) are effective in reducing emissions of all six of the pollutants that comprise " total HAP" as defined in the rule, such that a single ( predominant) HAP emitted from a given source would be a good surrogate for determining the control device performance.

We disagree with the commenter's assertion that options 4 and 6 are redundant to options 3 and 5 and that the inlet concentration restrictions in options 4 and 6 should be lowered. First,

we established the 10 ppmvd minimum inlet concentration for options 4 and 6 to avoid having a source base compliance on a pollutant that was not present in sufficient quantities and to avoid the use of control devices that have little or no ability to consistently reduce HAP emissions. Many NESHAP require sources to base compliance on the primary pollutant to minimize measurement 2 111 related issues such as concentrations near method detection limits and rounding of emissions data into compliant ranges. We believe that compliance with a NESHAP should not be based on a pollutant that is only present in quantities close to the detection limit. We also note that the control efficiencies are determined based on mass of pollutant at the control device inlet and outlet, not the concentration, and thus, a control device with an inlet pollutant concentration of 10 ppmvd coupled with an outlet concentration of 1 ppmvd does not necessarily correspond to a 90 percent reduction in emissions. Second, if inlet and outlet requirements are set at the same values ( e. g., 1 ppm) as suggested by the commenters, no emissions reduction would be required, and ineffective or poorly operating emission control devices could be used to comply with the standards. We note that data supplied by the PCWP industry show that the flow rate at the outlet of the control device can be more than 35 percent higher than the inlet flow rate, which creates a dilution effect on the outlet pollutant concentration. 11 Thus, the combination of lowered minimum inlet concentration requirements, dilution effects, and beneficial rounding to the " nearest significant digit" would render control options 4 and 6 equivalent to " no control." Third, we note that there are six compliance options for sources equipped with add on controls ( in addition to emissions averaging), and a review of the available data show that every RTO, RCO and biofilter could meet at least one of these six options, with some RTOs meeting five of the six options. 20,22 The available data also show that some RTOs with inlet methanol or formaldehyde emissions less than 10 ppmvd can achieve 90 percent reduction in emissions. 20,22 We further note that sources are only required to meet one of the six options for add on controls, and thus, a facility that is unable to use options 4 and/ or 6 due to low inlet concentrations still has at least four compliance options available to them. For these reasons, we retained the six proposed compliance options for add on control systems in the final rule.

2.6.3 Production based compliance options ( PBCO)

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenters IV D 19, IV D 27, and IV D 56 stated that facilities should be allowed to neglect nondetect HAP measurements for PBCO calculations. Commenters IV D 19 and IV D 27 stated that, if a facility is forced to use values of one half the detection limit for nondetect HAP, that facility may be unable to use PBCO. These two commenters also noted that the detection levels measured in the field by the NCASI IM/ CAN/ WP 99.01 generally range between 0.35 ppm and 1 ppm, and the results of the Fourier transform infrared ( FTIR) 2 112 methods average about 1 ppm. Because these detection levels are higher than the levels achieved in the lab, the one half detection levels that plants must use in their calculations are higher than the theoretical values used to set the limits. The commenter provided a sample calculation to demonstrate the effect that the detection level has on the compliance calculation. Commenter IVD 56 noted that only 10 percent of the one half nondetect level was used to establish the PBCO limits, but facilities must add the full amount of the one half level in emissions calculations.

Commenters IV D 19 and IV D 27 suggested that if EPA does not agree to allow facilities to neglect nondetect HAP data altogether, then EPA should at least allow facilities to multiply the detection level by 0.05 to achieve a value that is 10 percent of the one half detection limit level.

Response: The PBCO was established to allow for the future development of pollution prevention alternatives and to avoid the installation of add on control systems on inherently lowemitting sources that achieve MACT level performance through pollution prevention After reviewing the total HAP data used to establish the PBCO limits, we decided to allow sources to treat nondetect measurements for an individual HAP as zero for the sole purpose of determining compliance with the PBCO, if the following conditions are met:

( 1) the detection limit for that pollutant is set at a value that is less than or equal to 1 ppmvd; and ( 2) emissions of that pollutant are nondetect for all three test runs. 23 We included the first condition to prevent test contractors from setting the detection limits too high, and thus generating false zeroes. We selected 1 ppmvd as the maximum detection limit value because it matches the detection limits achievable with the test methods included in the PCWP rule. 24 We included the second condition to ensure that the source is truly low emitting, as evidenced by three nondetect test runs. If emissions of the HAP are detected during any one test run, then any nondetect runs must be treated as being equal to one half the detection limit. The option to treat nondetect measurements as zero does not apply to the compliance options for addon control systems, because treating the outlet emissions from a control device as zero would artificially increase the calculated control efficiency for that pollutant to 100 percent.

To ensure that the PBCO limits were developed in a manner consistent with how they would be applied, the PBCO limits were recalculated using zero for nondetect measurements when all test runs were nondetect. As a result, the PBCO limit for reconstituted wood product 2 113 board coolers changed from 0.015 to 0.014 lb/ MSF ( 3/ 4"). No other PBCO limits changed as a result of using zero for nondetects when calculating the PBCO limits.

<IP_ADDRESS> Comment: Commenter IV D 23 supported the inclusion of the PBCO in the rule as pollution prevention compliance options, noting that pollution prevention is " always preferred over pollution control." Commenters IV D 19 and IV D 27 also approved of the inclusion of a PBCO, but suggested that facilities be allowed to use add on control methods to achieve PBCO limits to make the PBCO a better P2 method. Commenters IV D 28 and IV D 43 concurred.

Commenters IV D 19 and IV D 27 provided rationale to support their recommendation.

First, both commenters stated that allowing add on controls is consistent with the development of the PBCO for the PCWP rule. According to the commenters, the high costs,

secondary emissions and energy requirements associated with the use of add on controls,

combined with the low toxicity and concentration of the regulated HAP prompted EPA to include an option based on P2 as an alternative to mandatory use of add on controls. Commenter IV D

27 quoted the following text from the document Development of Production Based Emission Limits for Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Units ( Docket # II B 32, hereafter referred to as the PBCO memo), "[ t] he emission limits should not be set so low that already wellcontrolled process units could not meet the limits; and conversely, the limits should not be set so high that uncontrolled process units could easily meet the limits." The commenter interpreted that text to mean that EPA intended that these PBCO limits would be applicable to process units with add on controls in place and that uncontrolled units would have to apply " significant measures" to meet the limits. The commenter asserted that the referenced document did not place any restrictions on the methodology by which PBCO limits would be met.

Second, the commenter contended that including add on controls in the PBCO is consistent with other MACT rules and P2 approaches. According to the commenter, numerous recent NESHAP, including Printing and Publishing Industry; Leather Finishing Operations; Amino and Phenolic Resins Production; Wood Building Products Surface Coating Operations ( proposed); Printing, Coating, and Dying of Fabrics ( proposed); Large Appliances Surface Coating Operations ( proposed); Paper and Other Web Coating; and Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations, allow emissions limits to be reached using add on controls, P2 techniques, or a combination of both. Similarly, the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 2 114 NESHAP does not specify how a facility must meet the production based emission limits. The commenter stated that there is " no legal or policy basis to impose restrictions on the use of PBCO in the PCWP MACT that were not deemed necessary in any of these other MACT standards."

Third, the commenter contended that allowing add on control methods supports those facilities trying to achieve compliance through P2 methods. The commenter noted that the PBCO memo states that, if add on controls were used to achieve PBCO limits, then the industry would have no incentive for developing P2 techniques. However, the commenter disagreed and suggested that EPA view add on controls from a " continuous compliance" perspective.

According to the commenter, the selective use of a MACT level add on control is a legitimate P2 technique to compensate for a minor emission reduction shortfall of a process P2 strategy or to provide a compliance safety margin for a similar P2 strategy whose ability to deliver continuously certifiable compliance might be threatened by such things as seasonal variability of raw materials.

The commenter contended that such an approach would provide the necessary incentive for sources to invest in innovative P2 techniques by providing protection against noncompliance action during the technology development process.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33625]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13562]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72332 ; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 2081, Prohibited Conditions Relating to
Expungement of Customer Dispute Information

June 5, 2014.
    On April 14, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt FINRA Rule 2081 to prohibit member firms
and associated persons from conditioning or seeking to condition
settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate
the customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to
oppose, the firm's or associated person's request to expunge the
customer dispute information which was the subject of the settlement
from the Central Registration Depository (CRD[supreg]). The proposal
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 23, 2014.\3\
The Commission received 15 comments on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71959 (April 17,
2014), 79 FR 22734 (SR-FINRA-2014-020).
    \4\ See Letter from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C., dated April 21, 2014; Letter from Nicole G. Iannarone,
Assistant Clinical Professor, Tim Guilmette, Student Intern, and
Nataliya Obikhod, Student Intern, Georgia State University College
of Law, dated May 1, 2014; Letter from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff,
Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated May 5, 2014; Letter from Richard P. Ryder,
dated May 5, 2014; Letter from Barry D. Estell, dated May 7, 2014;
Letter from Leonard Steiner, Steiner & Libo, PC, dated May 7, 2014;
Letter from Philip M. Aidikoff, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated
May 1, 2014; Letter from George H. Friedman, George H. Friedman
Consulting, LLC, dated May 13, 2014; Letter from Jason Doss,
President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated May
13, 2014; Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Financial Services Institute, dated May 14,
2014; Letter from Andrea Seidt, Ohio Securities Commissioner and
North American Securities Administrators Association (``NASAA'')
President, NASAA, dated May 14, 2014; Letter from Jill Gross,
Director, Elissa Germaine, Supervising Attorney, and Michelle
Robinson, Student Intern, John Jay Legal Services, Inc., Pace
University School of Law, dated May 14, 2014; Letter from Kevin M.
Carroll, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association Small Firms Committee,
dated May 14, 2014; Letter from Ronald M. Amato, Amato Law Firm,
LLC, dated May 15, 2014; and Letter from Harry A. Jacobwitz,
Database Manager, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc., dated
May 16, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is June 7, 2014. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comment
letters received.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates July 22, 2014 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
FINRA-2014-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13562 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28327-28328]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74927; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Tier Size Pilot of FINRA Rule 6433
(Minimum Quotation Size Requirements for OTC Equity Securities)

May 12, 2015.
    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 April 30, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity Securities) to extend the Tier Size Pilot,
which currently is scheduled to expire on May 15, 2015, for an
additional three months, until August 14, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 6433 (Minimum Quotation Size
Requirements for OTC Equity Securities) (the ``Rule'') to extend, until
August 14, 2015, the amendments set forth in File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058
(``Tier Size Pilot'' or ``Pilot''), which currently are scheduled to
expire on May 15, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73299 (October 3,
2014), 79 FR 61120 (October 9, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2014-041); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67208 (June 15, 2012), 77 FR 37458 (June
21, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2011-058, as amended).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tier Size Pilot was filed with the SEC on October 6, 2011,\5\
to amend the minimum quotation sizes (or ``tier sizes'') for OTC Equity
Securities.\6\ The goals of the Pilot were to simplify the tier
structure, facilitate the display of customer limit orders, and expand
the scope of the Rule to apply to additional quoting participants.
During the course of the pilot, FINRA collected and provided to the SEC
specified data with which to assess the impact of the Pilot tiers on
market quality and limit order display.\7\ On September 13, 2013, FINRA
provided to the Commission an assessment on the operation of the Tier
Size Pilot utilizing data covering the period from November 12, 2012
through June 30, 2013.\8\ As noted in the 2013 Assessment, FINRA
believed that the analysis of the data generally showed that the Tier
Size Pilot had a neutral to positive impact on OTC market quality for
the majority of OTC Equity Securities and tiers; and that there was an
overall increase of 13% in the number of customer limit orders that met
the minimum quotation sizes to be eligible for display under the Pilot
tiers. In the 2013 Assessment, FINRA recommended adopting the tiers as
permanent, but extended the pilot period to allow more time to gather
and analyze data after the November 12, 2012 through June 30, 2013
assessment period.\9\ On January 29, 2015, FINRA further extended the
Pilot period to permit FINRA and the Commission to consider the
implications of the data collected since June 30, 2013.\10\ FINRA has
reviewed this post-June 30, 2013 data, and believes that the impact
described in the 2013 Assessment has continued to hold (and has
improved in certain areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65568 (October 14,
2011), 76 FR 65307 (October 20, 2011) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-FINRA-2011-058).
    \6\ ``OTC Equity Security'' means any equity security that is
not an ``NMS stock'' as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of
SEC Regulation NMS; provided, however, that the term OTC Equity
Security shall not include any Restricted Equity Security. See FINRA
Rule 6420.
    \7\ FINRA ceased collecting Pilot data for submission to the
Commission on February 13, 2015.
    \8\ The assessment is part of the SEC's comment file for SR-
FINRA-2011-058 and also is available on FINRA's Web site at: http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2011/P124615 (``Pilot
Assessment'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70839 (November 8,
2013), 78 FR 68893 (November 15, 2013) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-049).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74251 (February 11,
2015), 80 FR 8741 (February 18, 2015) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2015-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to extend the operation of the Tier
Size Pilot for an additional three month period, until August 14, 2015,
to provide FINRA with additional time to finalize its recommendation
with regard to the Tier Size Pilot.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be
May 15, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which

requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. FINRA also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(11) of the Act.\12\ Section 15A(b)(11) requires that FINRA rules
include provisions governing the form and content of quotations
relating to securities sold otherwise than on a national securities
exchange which may be distributed or published by any member or person
associated with a member, and the persons to whom such quotations may
be supplied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the extension of the Tier Size Pilot for an
additional three months is consistent with the Act in that it would
provide the Commission and FINRA with additional time to determine
whether the pilot tiers should be made permanent.

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file 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
satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay
so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because such
waiver will allow the pilot program to continue without interruption.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal as operative upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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-FINRA-2015-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-010. 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 St. NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2015-010, and should
be submitted on or before June 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11869 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21-24]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R04-OAR-2005-TN-0004-200526(a); FRL-8014-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee and
Nashville-Davidson County; Approval of Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving non-regulatory revisions to the Tennessee
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and regulatory revisions to the
Nashville-Davidson portion of the Tennessee SIP, submitted by the State
of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) on January 26, 1999, October 11, 2001, and April
15, 2005. The revisions amend the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
program in Nashville-Davidson County and the Nashville (Middle
Tennessee) 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective March 6, 2006 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 2,
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R04-OAR-2005-TN-0004, by one of the following
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA's

electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    5. Mail: R04-OAR-2005-TN-0004, 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.
    6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Marie

Hoffman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R04-OAR-2005-TN-
0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
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: Anne Marie Hoffman, 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. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Hoffman can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 11, 1997, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
approved non-regulatory revisions to the Nashville Ozone Maintenance
Plan so that the Plan would remain consistent with Rule 1200-3-29-.03,
Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements. On October 10, 2001, and April
12, 2005, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board approved revisions
to the Nashville-Davidson County Regulation No. 8, Regulation of
Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles Through Mandatory Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program. The final revisions, adopted on
April 12, 2005, are consistent with the State of Tennessee Light-Duty
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance regulations and support the
Nashville-Davidson County Metropolitan Health Department's efforts to
ensure attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS).

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    The non-regulatory revision to the Nashville Ozone Maintenance Plan
submitted to EPA on January, 26, 1999, revises the Nashville Ozone
Maintenance Plan so that the Plan remains consistent with Rule 1200-3-
29-.03, Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements. The revision to the
Maintenance Plan merely updates the Plan and does not impact any
emission calculations or affect any compliance rate calculations in the
Maintenance Plan.
    The revisions submitted to EPA on October 11, 2001, revise
Regulation No. 8 of the Nashville-Davidson County portion of the
Tennessee SIP, Regulation of Emissions From Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
through Mandatory Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, by
changing definitions, on board diagnostics requirements, and fees
associated with the program.
    The revisions submitted to EPA on April 12, 2005, revise Regulation
No. 8 of the Nashville-Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP,
Regulation of Emissions From Light-Duty Motor Vehicles through
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, by expanding the
existing regulations to increase the vehicle test weight to 10,000
pounds (gross vehicle weight rating) and adding diesel powered vehicles
from 1975 to the present year. The revisions are consistent with the
State of Tennessee Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
regulations and will improve air quality in Nashville through vehicle
emissions reductions. The emissions reductions expected in the
Nashville area from expansion of the inspection and maintenance program
will be 0.0231 tons per day of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
0.0455 tons per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC).

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned regulatory and nonregulatory
changes to the Tennessee SIP because they are consistent with the Clean
Air Act and EPA requirements.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 6, 2006
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
February 2, 2006.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on March 6, 2006 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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
rule 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 6, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: December 9, 2005.
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 RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c) under ``Table 5-EPA Approved Nashville-Davidson
County Regulations'' by revising entries for ``Regulation No. 8
Regulation of Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles Through
Mandatory Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program.''
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding new entry at the end of the table for
``Nashville Ozone Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                          Table 5.--EPA-Approved Nashville-Davidson County Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective
         State citation              Title/subject           date          EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regulation No. 8................  Regulation of       4/12/05...........  January 3, 2006.    ..................
                                   Emissions from                          [Insert first
                                   Light-Duty Motor                        page of
                                   Vehicles Through                        publication].
                                   Mandatory Vehicle
                                   Inspection and
                                   Maintenance
                                   Program.

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      State effective    EPA approval date      Explanation
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nashville 1-Hour Ozone            Nashville 1-Hour    June 11, 2005.....  January 3, 2006     ..................
 Maintenance Plan.                 Ozone Maintenance                       [Insert first
                                   Area.                                   page number of
                                                                           publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 05-24413 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57043-57044]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 245

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0019, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AC91

Certification of Dispatchers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 31, 2023, FRA published an NPRM proposing to require
railroads to develop written programs for certifying dispatchers and to
submit those written certification programs to FRA for approval prior
to implementation. On July 5, 2023, FRA published a notice extending
the comment period by 30 days. By this notice, FRA is extending the
NPRM's comment period by an additional 15 days.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM, scheduled to close on August
30, 2023, is extended until September 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2022-0019, Notice No.
1, may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and
following the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
name, and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AC91). Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis Dolan, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Dispatch Operating Practices, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected]; or Michael C. Spinnicchia, Attorney
Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 24, 2023, FRA provided information
in the rulemaking docket about the accidents that were analyzed by FRA
in the regulatory impact analysis.\1\ In an August 5, 2023, petition,
the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
requested a 30-day extension of the NPRM's \2\ comment period to
analyze the information and its impact on ASLRRA's member railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2022-0019-0022.
    \2\ 88 FR 35574 (May 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment period for this NPRM is scheduled to close on August
30, 2023.\3\ As FRA is partially granting ASLRRA's request, the comment
period is now extended 15 days to September 14, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 88 FR 42907 (July 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact

the agency for alternate submission instructions.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20162, 21301, 21304, 21311;
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 CFR 1.89; and Pub. L. 110-432, sec. 402, 122
Stat. 4884.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-18033 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10855]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Release of Federal
Property at Cartersville Airport, Cartersville, GA.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Cartersville--Bartow County Airport Authority to waive the requirement
that 1.095 acres in fee simple of federal property, located at the
Cartersville Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701
Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Keith Lovell, Attorney for Cartersville--Bartow
County Airport Authority at the following address: 336 S. Tennessee
Street, P.O. Box 1024, Cartersville, GA 30120.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260,
Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Cartersville--Bartow County Airport Authority to release 1.095 acres of
federal property at the Cartersville Airport. The property will be
released for purchase by Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to
improve and widen Highway 61/113. The net proceeds from the sale of
this property will be used for airport purposes. The proposed use of
this property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Cartersville--Bartow
County Airport Authority.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on February 12, 1008.
Larry F. Clark,
Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 08-874 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M