[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18196-18199]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07633]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80425; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes), Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule
4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross)

April 11, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 31, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') 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 the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule
4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to
specify the execution priority of an Order that has been locked or
crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced
for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Nasdaq is also
proposing to amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes) and Rule 4753 (Halt
Cross) to clarify the effect of the re-pricing of an Order that has
been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order
for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 4752 (Opening
Process), Rule 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing
Cross) to specify the execution priority of an Order that has been
locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and
re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross.
    Rule 4752, 4753 and 4754 set forth the operation of the Opening
Cross, the Halt Cross, and the Closing Cross, respectively. Each Rule
specifies the manner in which orders will be executed if less than all
available interest is executed as part of the Cross. Specifically, Rule
4752 states that, if the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is selected and
fewer than all shares of Market On Open (``MOO''), Limit On Open
(``LOO''), Opening Imbalance Only Order (``OIO'') and Early Market
Hours Orders that are available in the Nasdaq Market Center would be
executed, all Quotes and Orders shall be executed at the Nasdaq Opening
Cross price in the following priority: (A) MOO and Early Market Hours
market peg orders, with time as the secondary priority; (B) LOO orders,
Early Market Hours limit orders, OIO orders, SDAY limit orders, SGTC
limit orders, GTMC limit orders, SHEX limit orders, displayed quotes
and reserve interest priced more aggressively than the Nasdaq Opening
Cross price based on limit price with time as the secondary priority;
(C) LOO orders, OIO Orders, Early Market Hours and displayed interest
of quotes, SDAY limit orders, SGTC limit orders, GTMC limit orders, and
SHEX limit orders at the Nasdaq Opening Cross price with time as the
secondary priority; and (D) reserve interest of quotes, SDAY limit
orders, SGTC limit orders, and GTMC limit orders and SHEX limit orders
at the Nasdaq Opening Cross price with time as the secondary priority.
    Rule 4753 states that, if the Nasdaq Halt Cross price is selected
and fewer than all shares of Eligible Interest that are available in
the Nasdaq Market Center would be executed, all Eligible Interest shall
be executed at the Nasdaq Halt Cross price in price/time priority.
    Rule 4754 states that, if the Nasdaq Closing Cross price is
selected and fewer than all Market On Close (``MOC''), Limit On Close
(``LOC''), Imbalance Only (``IO'') and Close Eligible Interest would be
executed, orders will be executed at the Nasdaq Closing Cross price in
the following priority: (A) MOC orders, with time as the secondary
priority; (B) LOC orders, limit orders, IO orders, displayed quotes and
reserve interest priced more aggressively than the Nasdaq Closing Cross
price based on price with time as the secondary priority; (C) LOC
orders, IO Orders displayed interest of limit orders, and displayed
interest of quotes at the Nasdaq Closing Cross price with time as the
secondary priority; (D) reserve interest at the Nasdaq Closing Cross
price with time as the secondary priority; and (E) unexecuted MOC, LOC,
and IO orders will be canceled.
    Nasdaq now proposes to amend the provisions of Rules 4752, 4753 and
4754 to specifically describe the execution priority an Order that was
entered on the Nasdaq Book and has been locked or crossed at its non-
displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the
Opening, Closing or Halt Cross.
    In November 2016, the Commission approved changes to the
functionality of Post-Only Orders.\3\ As a result of this

new Post-Only functionality, Nasdaq recently amended Rule 4703 and Rule
4753 to address the treatment of an Order that and has been locked or
crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for purposes of
the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Nasdaq amended Rule 4703 and Rule
4753 to specify that, if an Order to buy (sell) that is entered on the
Nasdaq Book is locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-
Only Order, that Order will be deemed to have a price at one minimum
increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only for purposes of
selecting the price of the Opening Cross, the Closing Cross, and the
Halt Cross.\4\ This functionality applies to Non-Displayed Orders,
Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and Midpoint Peg Post-Only
Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is locked or crossed
by a Post-Only Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-111).
    Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only
orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock
or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically,
if the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a
non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order
would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order.
However, the Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced below
$1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing
against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the
original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees
charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be
provided if the Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently
provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the
value of price improvement associated with executing against an
Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit
price of the Order) equals or exceeds $0.01 per share.
    Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a
Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on
the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked,
and displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute
if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement
associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals
or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value
of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the
Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is
priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement
associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals
or exceeds $0.01 per share.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80216 (March 10,
2017), 82 FR 14074 (March 16, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-028) (``Cross
Proposal'').
    \5\ As noted in the Cross Proposal, in this scenario, the Post-
Only Order would have locked or crossed the Non-Displayed Order,
Post-Only, Price to Comply Order, or Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order at
its non-displayed price upon entry if the value of price improvement
associated with executing against the Order is not met. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq is now proposing to amend Rules 4752, 4753 and 4754 to
specify the execution priority of an Order that has been locked or
crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced
for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Accordingly,
Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4752(d)(3)(B) to state that Orders to buy
(sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed price by a
Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book in Early Market Hours, and which
have been deemed to have a price at one minimum price increment below
(above) the price of the Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time
priority ahead of all orders one minimum price increment below (above)
the price of the Post-Only Order but behind all orders at the price at
which the Order was posted to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing
functionality will apply to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, and
Price to Comply Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is
locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.
    Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4753(b)(3) to state that Orders to
buy (sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed price by a
Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book, and which have been deemed to have
a price at one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the
Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time priority ahead of all orders
one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only
Order but behind all orders at the price at which the Order was posted
to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing functionality will apply to Non-
Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and Midpoint
Peg Post-Only Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is
locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.
    Finally, Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4754(b)(3)(B) to state that
Orders to buy (sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed
price by a Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book, and which have been
deemed to have a price at one minimum price increment below (above) the
price of the Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time priority ahead of
all orders one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the
Post-Only Order but behind all orders at the price at which the Order
was posted to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing functionality will apply
to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and
Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders when the non-displayed price of that
Order is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.
    Nasdaq also proposes to amend the language in Rule 4703 (Order
Attributes) and Rule 4753 relating to the re-pricing of Orders that are
locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for
purposes of determining the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross, as
described above. Rule 4703(l) describes this re-pricing functionality
as occurring ``for purposes of selecting the Nasdaq Opening Cross or
Closing Cross price.'' Rule 4753(d) similarly describes this re-pricing
functionality as occurring ``for purposes of selecting the Nasdaq Halt
Cross Price.'' Nasdaq proposes to amend both 4703(l) and Rule 4753(d)
to describe this functionality as occurring for purposes of the Nasdaq
Opening, Closing, or Halt Cross. Nasdaq is making this change to
clarify the effect of the re-pricing functionality, since the re-
pricing of an Order pursuant to this provision establishes both the
price of the Order for purposes of the Cross and the execution priority
of the Order as part of the Cross (although that execution priority may
be modified based on the changes being proposed herein).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
This filing supplements the Cross Proposal to re-price an Order that is
locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for
purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. As stated in that
proposal, Nasdaq believed that such re-pricing was consistent with the
Act because it, among other things, reflected the intent of the Nasdaq
Opening and Closing Cross functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act for
several reasons. First, the proposal adopts a new execution priority,
for an Order that has a non-displayed price that is locked or crossed
by a Post-Only Order, that reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems
that is necessary to fulfill a central premise of the Opening, Halt,
and Closing Cross. Specifically, given the operation of the Opening,
Halt and Closing Cross, Orders cannot be locked or crossed for purposes
of the Cross. The proposed changes here reflect this premise, and the
configuration of the Nasdaq systems that is necessary to achieve this
result.
    Second, Nasdaq is proposing to rank Orders that are subject to this
proposal in time priority ahead of all other Orders at that same price.
While Nasdaq notes that, in certain scenarios, an Order might not
participate in a Cross at its re-priced price when it might have
participated in the Cross at its posted price on the Nasdaq Book, the
proposal increases the likelihood that such interest will be executed
as part of the Cross than if such interest had been assigned a
different priority at its new price.\8\ Nasdaq also notes that there
are

instances in which a locked or crossed Order may participate in a Cross
at its posted price on the Nasdaq Book.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, if the non-displayed price of a sell Order was
entered at $10.15, and was locked by a Post-Only Order to buy at
$10.15, the price of the sell Order would be adjusted to $10.16 for
purposes of the Cross. That Order would now have priority over all
other Orders at $10.16.
    \9\ Pursuant to this functionality, an Order is only re-priced
at the time that the Cross price is being calculated. To the extent
that a member cancels any locking Post-Only Orders prior to the
calculation of the Cross price, the locked Order would not be re-
priced. This might occur prior to the Opening, Closing, or Halt
Cross, which reduces the likelihood that a locked Order will be re-
priced and will be unable to participate in the Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Nasdaq notes that re-priced Orders that do not participate
in the Opening or Halt Cross remain on the Nasdaq Book, and that the
proposed functionality would not impair the ability of such Orders to
participate in the Regular Market Session after the conclusion of the
Cross.
    Finally, this proposed change is limited to an Order with a non-
displayed price that is locked by a Post-Only Order for purposes of the
Open, Halt and Closing Cross. While non-displayed liquidity may enhance
market quality in other ways, such liquidity does not contribute to the
price discovery process in the same manner as displayed liquidity. Had
the Order been displayed, the priority of the Order would not have
changed, as the Order would be setting the best displayed price on the
Exchange. Use of the Nasdaq systems and Order types is completely
voluntary, and members may always opt to use a different Order type to
achieve a different result.
    Nasdaq believes that amending the language in Rule 4703 and Rule
4753 relating to the re-pricing of an Order that is locked or crossed
at its non-displayed price for purposes of the Opening, Closing or Halt
Cross is consistent with the Act because it more accurately describes
the effect of this re-pricing functionality as it relates to the Cross.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change adopts an
execution priority for a more aggressively-priced Order that has been
locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and
re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross that
reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems that is necessary to
ensure that Orders are not locked or crossed for purposes of the
Opening, Halt or Closing Cross. To the extent that such Orders will be
ranked in time priority ahead of all other Orders at that same price,
the proposal increases the likelihood that such interest will be
executed as part of the Cross than if such interest had been assigned a
different priority at its new price. There are instances where a locked
or crossed Order may participate in a Cross at its posted price on the
Nasdaq Book, and re-priced Orders that do not participate in the
Opening or Halt Cross would remain eligible to participate in the
Regular Market Session after the conclusion of the Cross. Moreover, the
use of Exchange Order types and attributes is voluntary, and no member
is required to use any specific Order type or attribute or even to use
any Exchange Order type or attribute or any Exchange functionality at
all. If an Exchange member believes for any reason that the proposed
rule change will be detrimental, that perceived detriment can be
avoided by choosing not to enter or interact with the Order types
modified by this proposed rule change. Finally, the proposal will apply
equally to all Orders that meet its criteria.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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 \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes the proposal reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems
necessary to ensure that Orders are not locked or crossed for purposes
of the Opening, Halt or Closing Cross, while increasing the likelihood
that re-priced Orders will be executed as part of the Cross than if
such interest had been assigned a different priority at its new price.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ 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 change 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-NASDAQ-2017-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-031. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-031 and should be submitted on or before May
8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07633 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51666-51668]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16725]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0220; FRL-10012-83-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Negative Declaration for the
Oil and Gas Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The revision provides Massachusetts' determination, via
a negative declaration, that there are no facilities within its borders
subject to EPA's 2016 Control Technique Guideline (CTG) for the oil and
gas industry with respect to both the 2008 and 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of this
action is to approve this item into the non regulatory portion of the
Massachusetts SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0220. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 at https://www.regulations.gov, or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 18, 2020, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM; see 85 FR 29678) with an associated Direct Final Rule (DFR; see
85 FR 29628) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The DFR approved a
negative declaration for Massachusetts for EPA's 2016 Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) for the oil and gas industry. We received one relevant
adverse comment on the NPRM, and so withdrew the DFR via a Withdrawal
Notice published on June 26, 2020. See 85 FR 38327. Other specific
requirements of Massachusetts' submittal and the rationale for EPA's
action are explained in the DFR and will not be restated here. Our
response to the adverse comment on the NPRM is summarized and responded
to in section II below.

II. Response to Comment

    We received one relevant adverse comment on the NPRM. A summary of
the comment, and our response, follows.
    Comment: EPA provides no explanation of why Massachusetts' SIP is
acceptable. EPA's mere ``understanding'' is not enough to approve a
SIP, EPA must evaluate the merits of the SIP and independently verify
the accuracy of Massachusetts' assertions. EPA must check sources of
information for any sources subject to the oil and natural gas industry
CTG.
    Response: First, we note that the commenter does not provide any
information to contradict Massachusetts' finding that no sources
subject to EPA's 2016 CTG for the oil and gas industry exist within the
Commonwealth. EPA is not aware of any information indicating that a
facility subject to the 2016 oil and gas CTG exists within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, we note that EPA has
historically allowed states to submit a negative declaration for a
particular CTG category if the state finds that no sources exist in the
state which would be subject to that CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of
negative declarations numerous times and for various NAAQS including in
the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments,\1\ the 2006 RACT Q&A
Memo,\2\ and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule.\3\ In each of these

documents, EPA asserted that if no sources exist in the nonattainment
area for a particular CTG category, the state would be allowed to
submit a negative declaration SIP revision. This principle also applies
to states in the ozone transport region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992)).
    \2\ ``RACT Q's and A's--Reasonably Available Control Technology
RACT: Questions and Answers'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
May 18, 2006.
    \3\ ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (80
FR 12263 at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we note that Massachusetts' finding is consistent with
information contained within EPA data resources of industrial activity
within the United States, such as the National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) database of sources of air pollution, which is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei. And last, we note that EPA Region 1 worked with
Massachusetts, and EPA headquarters' technical experts on the CTG, to
review the applicability criteria of EPA's 2016 oil and gas CTG to
assist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its determination.

III. Final Action

    We are approving a negative declaration for EPA's 2016 CTG entitled
``Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry''
into the Massachusetts SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    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 October 20, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 27, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends Part 52 of
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. In Sec.  52.1120, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding the
entry for ``Negative declaration for the 2016 Control Techniques
Guideline for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry'' at the end of the
table, to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                          Massachusetts Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or     submittal date/ EPA approved date \      Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date           3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Negative declaration for the 2016  Statewide..........      10/18/2018  8/21/2020 [Insert    Negative
 Control Techniques Guidelines                                           Federal Register     declaration
 for the Oil and Natural Gas                                             citation].
 Industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
  Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2020-16725 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11096]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-591-002]

Equitrans LP; Notice of Filing

March 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 5, 2009, Equitrans, L.P. filed an offer
of settlement in the form of a Stipulation and Agreement resolving all
issues concerning Equitrans' Tennessee Capacity Surcharge Tracker.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the date as indicated
below. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5551 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66197-66200]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0393; FRL-9988-23-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Open Burning Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the open burning standards in the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 4,
2018, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio) requested the
approval of its revised open burning rules, which include adding
requirements for air curtain burners,

allowing law enforcement to burn seized drugs, further restricting the
materials that may burned, and updating definitions and references.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0393 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is EPA proposing to approve?
II. Why did Ohio request this SIP revision?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the revisions?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA proposing to approve?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Ohio's open burning rules
submitted on June 4, 2018. The state submitted revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-19, ``Open Burning Standards.''
EPA proposes approving the revised OAC rules 3745-19-01, 3745-19-03,
3745-19-04, and 3745-19-05 into the Ohio SIP.

II. Why did Ohio request this SIP revision?

    Ohio reviewed and revised its open burning rules to satisfy a state
requirement to review its rules every five years. Ohio's submission
includes additional revisions that the state made since the last EPA
approval of OAC 3745-19 into the Ohio SIP on March 21, 2008 (73 FR
15081).

III. What is EPA's analysis of the revisions?

    EPA evaluated the revisions to Ohio's open burning standards under
the CAA. The rules as effective at the state level on April 30, 2018,
were compared to rules approved into the Ohio SIP. The rules OAC 3745-
19-01, OAC 3745-19-03, OAC 3745-19-04, and OAC 3745-19-05 have changed.
EPA evaluated the revisions within those rules.
    Ohio made minor revisions to rules OAC 3745-19-01, OAC 3745-19-03,
OAC 3745-19-04, and OAC 3745-19-05 that update citations, renumber
sections, and standardize formatting. EPA reviewed these minor
revisions, found them acceptable, and is proposing their approval.

OAC 3745-19-01, ``Definitions''

    Ohio made additions to the definitions of agricultural waste and
residential waste that are more restrictive than those contained in the
current Ohio SIP. Ohio added definitions for air curtain burner, air
curtain destructor, building materials, and inhabited building. Other
open burning standards use these new definitions. OAC 3745-19-04(C)(6)
uses air curtain burner and air curtain destructor. OAC 3745-19-
03(C)(3)(e) and 3745-19-04(B)(3)(e) use building material. OAC 3745-19-
03 and 3745-19-04 use inhabited building. Ohio also updated the
incorporation by references. Ohio further updated the paragraphs to
keep the definitions in alphabetical order and made other clerical
revisions to OAC 3745-19-01. EPA finds that the additions and revisions
to OAC 3745-19-01, ``Definitions'' support Ohio's open burning
standards. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions.

OAC 3745-19-03, ``Open burning in restricted areas''

    The addition of OAC 3745-19-03 (B)(5) allows law enforcement
agencies to burn seized drugs without notifying Ohio EPA. Ohio
previously allowed this under the ``similar purposes'' provision of OAC
3745-19-03 (B)(2). Ohio EPA concluded that adding OAC 3745-19-03 (B)(5)
does not affect the scope of the rule and will not interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and meets CAA section 110(l) requirements.
    Ohio moved OAC 3745-19-03 (D)(4) to (C)(4). Moving this paragraph
on prescribed burns, such as horticultural, silvicultural, and prairie
burns, alters the notification requirements. Events meeting the
definition and conditions in the rule will require prior notification
to Ohio EPA instead of the previous requirement of prior written
permission from Ohio EPA. Ohio added conditions at OAC 3745-19-03
(C)(4)(a) to (f). The party must meet the six conditions to burn that
are more restrictive than the previous requirement. The conditions
enhance notifications for the local fire department and public along
with recordkeeping requirements.
    Ohio extended authorization for governmental agencies to burn for
controlling disease and pests, subject to requirements specified in OAC
3745-19-03(C)(1), to two additional health agencies, Ohio Department of
Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ohio also
revised OAC 3745-19-03 (C)(3)(b) and (e) to prohibit smoke from
creating a visibility hazard and adding plastic and building materials
to materials prohibited from being burned as agricultural waste.
    Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-19-03 adds, restricts, or rearrange,
existing standards such that it is reasonable to expect emissions from
open burning will not increase. Thus, EPA concurs that the revisions to
OAC 3745-19-03 will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
air quality standards. EPA finds that the revisions to ``Open burning
in restricted areas'' are acceptable and therefore proposes approval
into the Ohio SIP.

OAC 3745-19-04, ``Open burning in unrestricted areas''

    Ohio added a size limit, 20 feet diameter and 10 feet height, for
residential and agricultural waste burning in OAC 3745-19-04 (B)(3)(f).
Waste piles larger than that size require prior notification to Ohio
EPA with this revision. In such a situation, Ohio EPA will have an
opportunity to review the burning plans and work with the regulated
entity such that human health and the environment remain protected.
    Ohio added requirements for operating an air curtain burner at OAC
3745-19-04(C)(6). The owner or operator must obtain permit-to-install
and title V permits. OAC 3745-19-04(C)(6)(b) to (g) gives the
restrictions

on the location of the air curtain burner along with operating
conditions. Ohio EPA deems that adding OAC 3745-19-04(C)(6) does not
affect the scope of the rule and will not interfere with the attainment
and maintenance of any NAAQS and meets CAA section 110(l) requirements.
EPA found that air curtain burners are a potential means of reducing
waste volume while minimizing potentially harmful emissions, criteria
and hazardous air pollutants, in its ``Managing Debris after a Natural
Disaster'' report.\1\. Under CAA sections 111 and 129, operators of
subject solid waste incinerators must obtain a title V permit. Air
curtain burners regulated by 40 CFR 60.2974 or 60.3069 must obtain a
title V permit. Ohio's rule ensures sources meet this permitting
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA. Managing Debris after a Natural Disaster:
Evaluation of the Combustion of Storm-Generated Vegetative and C&D
Debris in an Air Curtain Burner: Source Emissions Measurement
Results. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-16/353, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other revisions to OAC 3745-19-04 are similar to the revisions
made in OAC 3745-19-03. Ohio added OAC 3745-19-04(B)(6) that allows law
enforcement to burn seized drugs without notifying Ohio EPA. Ohio moved
its prescribed burning rule from OAC 3745-19-04(C)(5) to (D)(2) while
adding conditions like those in OAC 3745-19-03(C)(4). Ohio revised OAC
3745-19-04(D), now (D)(1) with the addition of (D)(2), to include two
additional agencies, Ohio Department of Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, into the requirements for health
agencies to burn for controlling disease and pests. This is analogous
to the revision of OAC 3745-19-03(C)(1). Further, Ohio revised the
residential and agricultural waste burning requirements of OAC 3745-19-
04(B)(3) to prohibit smoke from creating a visibility hazard and adding
plastic and building materials as prohibited materials. This revision
is comparable to revisions to OAC 3745-19-03(C)(3)(b) and (e).
    Revisions that Ohio made to OAC 3745-19-04 that are similar to
revisions made to OAC 3745-19-03 are acceptable for the same reasons.
Namely, these revisions are to OAC 3745-19-04(B)(6), OAC 3745-19-
04(C)(6), OAC 3745-19-04(D)(1) and (2), plus the deletion of OAC 3745-
19-04(C)(5). It is reasonable to expect emissions from open burning
will not increase from those revisions. The change to OAC 3745-19-
04(B)(3)(f) adds a restriction. The addition of OAC 3745-19-04(C)(6)
regulates air curtain burners in a manner consistent with federal
rules. EPA finds the revisions to OAC 3745-19-04 acceptable and thus is
proposing the approval of this rule into the Ohio SIP.

OAC 3745-19-05, ``Permission to Individuals and Notification to the
Ohio EPA''

    Ohio revised OAC 3745-19-05(A)(1) to clarify that applicants must
submit the application to burn at least 10 business days prior to the
burn. The revision also clarifies that open burning permissions are
effective on the date of issuance. At OAC 3745-19-05(A)(2)(b), Ohio
added fire size, quantity or acreage, as one of the required elements
of the open burning application. Ohio revised OAC 3745-19-05(A)(3) to
add ``when atmospheric conditions are appropriate'' to the elements the
applicant must demonstrate it will satisfy for Ohio to grant permission
to open burn.
    EPA finds that the revisions to OAC 3745-19-05 improve clarity.
Adding the fire size will help Ohio evaluate the impacts from the fire
while reviewing the application. Burning during favorable atmospheric
conditions will avoid unnecessary impact on the public. EPA expects the
revised rule to continue to protect air quality and therefore is
proposing to approve OAC 3745-19-05.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the open burning standards
in the Ohio SIP. EPA proposes approval of OAC 3745-19-01, OAC 3745-19-
03, OAC 3745-19-04, and OAC 3745-19-05, as submitted by Ohio on June 4,
2018.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-19-01 ``Definitions,''
3745-19-03 ``Open burning in restricted areas,'' 3745-19-04 ``Open
burning in unrestricted areas,'' and 3745-19-05 ``Permission to
individuals and notifications to the Ohio EPA'', effective April 30,
2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-27777 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 70825]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is canceling the
November 18, 2015, session and postponing the November 19, 2015,
session of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel meeting. The
meeting was announced in the Federal Register of October 7, 2015 (80 FR
60686). The November 19, 2015, session has been postponed due to the
cancellation of the November 18, 2015, meeting. Future meeting dates
will be announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-6875, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington DC
area), and follow the prompts to the desired center or product area.
Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this
meeting.

    Dated: November 9, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-28846 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1595-1598]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7420; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-017-AD;
Amendment 39-18774; AD 2017-01-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON
SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes;
Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and
MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that,
during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from an
airplane. This AD requires a functional test or check of the main entry
door closure and warning system, and applicable door closing
inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 10, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 10,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
http://

www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-7420.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7420; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model
FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G
airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-
C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2016 (81 FR
43120).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0007, dated January 15, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation
Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F,
and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-
FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During approach for landing, a Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 20-X5 lost
the main entrance door [MED] at an altitude of 7,000 feet. The
flight crew maintained control of the aeroplane to land
uneventfully. The results of the preliminary technical
investigations concluded that the cause of this event could be
either a broken cable, or an unlocked safety catch, associated with
one or two deficient micro switches.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight opening and/or detachment of the Crew/Passenger door,
possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or
injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
issued Service Bulletins (SB) F20-789, F200-133 and MF50-531,
providing instructions for inspection/adjustment, as well as an
operational test of the Crew/Passenger door closure.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time accomplishment of a functional test/check of the MED closure/
warning system. It also requires [a general visual] inspection and
operational test of the Crew/Passenger door [including the control
and latching mechanisms] and, depending on findings, applicable
corrective actions.

    Corrective actions include adjusting the telescopic rod bolts on
the door until the clearance between the lower part of the door and the
fuselage is within the specified tolerances. The corrective actions for
the control and latching mechanisms include adjusting components and
replacing damaged components (including pull latches, microswitches,
pulleys, and cables). Signs of damage include cracks, corrosion, wear,
and distortion. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-7420.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation issued the following service information.
     Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as
789, dated December 9, 2014.
     Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as
531, dated December 9, 2014.
     Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as
133, dated December 9, 2014.
    The service information describes procedures for inspections,
adjustments, and operational tests of certain doors and corrective
actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 392 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections/adjustments/operational     4 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $340        $133,280
 tests.                                  hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-01-07 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18774; Docket No. FAA-
2016-7420; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-017-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 10, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Dassault Aviation airplanes, certificated
in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of
this AD, all airplanes.
    (1) Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes.
    (2) Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes.
    (3) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes.
    (4) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5
airplanes.
    (5) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that, during approach for
landing, the main entry door detached from an airplane. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct defective crew/passenger
doors. Such a condition could result in the in-flight opening or
detachment of the crew/passenger door, which could result in loss of
control of the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified.

(g) Main Entry/Passenger/Crew Door Check or Functional Test

    Within 65 days after the effective date of this AD, unless done
within 6 months before the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable functional test or door lock check specified in paragraph
(g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, and do all applicable
corrective actions, using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault
Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON
SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5,
20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes: A functional test of the
passenger/crew door warning system.
    (2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: A check of the door
locking indicator system.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: A check of the door
lock indication.

(h) Main Entry/Passenger/Crew Door Closing Inspections, Adjustments,
and Operational Tests and Corrective Actions

    Within 330 flight hours or 13 months, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD, unless already done: Do the
applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, and operational
tests, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON
SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5,
20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F20-
789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.
    (2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Dassault Service
Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.
    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: Dassault Service
Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0007, dated January 15, 2015, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-7420.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789,
dated December 9, 2014.
    (ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531,
dated December 9, 2014.
    (iii) Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as
133, dated December 9, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2016.
Thomas Groves,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-31871 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19557]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09410]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9977-54-Region 6]

Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance--Class I Hazardous
Waste Injection; Equistar Corpus Christi, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a final decision on a UIC no migration petition
reissuance.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to
the Land Disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has
been granted to Equistar for two Class I hazardous waste injection
wells located at their Corpus Christi, Texas facility. The company has
adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA by the petition
reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by
Equistar of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this
exemption reissuance, into Class I hazardous waste injection wells WDW-
152 and WDW-153 until December 31, 2045, unless the EPA moves to
terminate this exemption or other petition condition limitations are
reached. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be
reviewed by contacting the EPA Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A
public notice was issued February 26, 2018, and the public comment
period closed on April 13, 2018, and no comments were received. This
decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative
appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.

DATES: This action is effective as of April 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Division, Safe
Drinking Water Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief, Ground Water/
UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 20, 2018.
James R. Brown,
Associate Director, Safe Drinking Water Branch.
[FR Doc. 2018-09410 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P