INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2012- 0021 Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans Index No. Category / Document Title  Document Date regs.gov Document ID A.   EPA Guidance Documents, Policies and Rulemakings

   1.1.  Proposed Rule - Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas, 45 FR 34762 1980-05-22

   1.2.  Final Rule - Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas, 45 FR 80084 1980-12-02

   1.3.  Proposed Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 62 FR 41138.pdf 1997-07-31

   1.4.  IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report And Recommendations For Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts 1998-12

   1.5.  Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 64 FR 35714 1999-07-01

   1.6.  Proposed BART Guidelines, 66 FR 38108 2001-06-20

   1.7.  Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule 2003-09

   1.8.  Guidance for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule 2003-09

   1.9.  Re-proposed BART Guidelines 2004-05-04

   1.10.  BART Guidelines Error Correction Memo 2005-06-24

   1.11.  Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART Determinations 2005-07-06

   1.12.  Memo from Joseph W. Paise regarding Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART 2006-07-19

   1.13.  Guidance - 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 2006-08-15

   1.14.  Additional Regional Haze Questions (Guidance) 2006-09-27

   1.15.  Final Rule - Revision to Regional Haze Regulations, 71 FR 60612 2006-10-13

   1.16.  Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program 2007-06-01

   1.17.  Finding of Failure To Submit SIPs Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, 74 FR 2392 2009-01-15

   1.18.  Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 76 FR 75544 2011-12-02

   1.19.  Visibility Monitoring Guidance 1999-06-01

   1.20.  2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning 2002-11-18

   1.21.  Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations 2005-08-01

   1.22.  Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act 2006-11

   1.23.  Performance Test Calculation Guidelines 1990-06-06

   1.24.  Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models, 70 FR 68218 2005-11-09

   1.25.  Methods for Measurement of Filterable PM10 and PM2.5 and Measurement of Condensable PM Emissions From Stationary Sources, 75 FR 80118 2010-12-21

   1.26.  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (MATS Rule), 77 FR 9304 2012-02-16

   1.27.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Nevada, 76 FR 36450 2011-06-22

   1.28.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for New York, 77 FR 24794 2012-04-25

   1.29.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for California, 76 FR 13944 2011-03-15

   1.30.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Rhode Island, 77 FR 11798 2012-02-28

   1.31.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Delaware, 76 FR 27973 2011-05-13

   1.32.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Nebraska, 77 FR 12770 2012-03-02

   1.33.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Colorado, 77 FR 18052 2012-03-26

   1.34.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Oklahoma, 76 FR 16168 2011-12-28

   1.35.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Vermont, 77 FR 11914 2012-02-28

   1.36.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Wisconsin, 77 FR 11928 2012-02-28

   1.37.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Kansas, 76 FR 52604 2011-08-23

   1.38.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Arkansas, 76 FR 64186 2011-10-17

   1.39.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Maryland, 77 FR 11827 2012-02-28

   1.40.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for North Dakota, 76 FR 58570 2011-09-11

   1.41.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Illinois, 77 FR 3966 2012-01-26

   1.42.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for South Dakota 76 FR 76646 2011-12-08

   1.43.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for California, 76 FR 34608 2011-06-14

   1.44.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Delaware, 76 FR 42557 2011-07-19

   1.45.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Kansas, 76 FR 80754 2011-12-27

   1.46.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for New Jersey, 77 FR 19 2012-01-03

   1.47.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for District of Columbia, 77 FR 5191   2012-02-02        1.48.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Arkansas, 77 FR 14603 2012-03-12        1.49.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Nevada, 77 FR 17334 2012-03-26        1.50.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for South Dakota, 77 FR 24845 2012-04-26        1.51.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Nebraska, 77 FR 40149 2012-07-06

       1.52.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for New York, 77 FR 51915 2012-08-28        1.53.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule for Virginia 77 FR 3691 2012-01-25        1.54.  Regional Haze Implementation Plans, Final Rule for Hawaii, 77 FR 61478 2012-10-09

   1.55.  Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action 2010-07

B.  State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, and Correspondence (letters and emails)

   2.1.  Arizona Regional Haze SIP (with appendices) 2011-01        2.2.  AEPCO Apache 1 BART Analysis 2007-12        2.3.  AEPCO Apache 2 BART Analysis 2007-12        2.4.  AEPCO Apache 3 BART Analysis 2007-12        2.5.  AEPCO Apache additional BART response 2009-07-08        2.6.  APS Cholla 2 BART Analysis 2008-01        2.7.  APS Cholla 3 BART Analysis 2008-01        2.8.  APS Cholla 4 BART Analysis 2008-01        2.9.  Additional APS Cholla BART response 2009-06-18        2.10.  SRP Coronado 1 and 2 BART Analysis 2008-02        2.11.  SRP Coronado additional BART response 2009-06-25        2.12.  Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Arizona Draft#5  2007-05-25        2.13.  WRAP Stationary Sources Joint Forum - Identification of BART-Eligible Sources in the WRAP Region 2005-04-04        2.14.  WRAP Stationary Sources Joint Forum  -  Appendix H 2006-09-21        2.15.  WRAP RMC BART Exemption Screening Modeling Protocol 2006-09-15        2.16.  Original Arizona  Section 309 SIP 2003-12-23        2.17.  Arizona Section 309 SIP Revision 2004-12        B.18. Direct Final Approval of ADEQ Open Burning Rules, 71 FR 28270 2006-05-14

   B.19. Arizona  Regional Haze Submittal Letter 2008-12-24

C.  EPA Communications with Facilities

   3.1.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Andrew (AEPCO) 2011-11-17

   3.2.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Bevier (SRP) 2011-11-17

   3.3.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Bittel (APCC) 2011-11-17

   3.4.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Mollenhauer (Catalyst Paper) 2011-11-17

   3.5.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Reilly (APS) 2011-11-17

   3.6.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Spell (APS) 2011-11-17

   3.7.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Verville (Lhoist North America) 2011-11-17

   3.8.  Letter from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Yockey (TEP) 2011-11-17

   3.9.  Letter from Eric Massey (ADEQ) to Deborah Jordan (EPA) 2011-11-21

   3.10.  Letter from Arizona Public Service Company (APS) 2011-12-12

   3.11.  Letter from Sue Kidd (APS) to Francisco Donez (EPA) 2012-02-14

   3.12.  Letter from Kelly Barr (SRP) to Francisco Donez (EPA) 2012-02-02

   3.13.   [Reserved]

   3.14.  Summary of EPA meeting with utility companies 2011-12-21

   3.15.  EPA follow-up to 12/21/2011 utilities meeting 2011-12-29

   3.16.  Letter from Kelly Barr (SRP) to Deborah Jordan (EPA) 2012-06-29

   3.17.  Letter from Michelle Freeark (AEPCO) to Deborah Jordan (EPA) 2012-06-26

   3.18.  2012-08-06 Jordan to Freeark-AEPCO request for information and responses  -  7 files 2012-08-06 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0019    3.19.  Barr SRP to Webb  -  3 files 2012-07-20 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0029    3.20.  Kidd APS to Blumenfeld  -  2 files 2012-07-20 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0030    3.21.  EPA clarification request to AEPCO  -  2 files 2012-09 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0031    3.22.  Jordan-Barr SRP Exchange 09-14-2012 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0032    3.23.  Freeark to McKaughan 2012-09-06 2012-09-06

   3.24.  Freeark-McKaughan emails re CBI + SNCR 2012-10 2012-10

   3.25.  Info request to SRP 2012-07-27  -  4 files 2012-07

   C.26. APS SCR cost information 2012-10-15  -  7 files 2012-10

   C.27. McKaughn-Kidd emails re Cholla Unit 1  -  5 files 2012-10

D.  EPA Correspondence (other letters and emails)

D-01 AZ Delegation Letter to Lisa Jackson re FIP Comment Period and Hearings  -  also contains 10 response letters dated 2012-07-26 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0018 D-02 Emissions conf call memo 2012-08-03 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0018 D-03 Daryl Seymore_City of Show Low Letter to Lisa Jackson - 2 files 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0020 D-04 JR Despain Navajo Cty to Blumenfeld- 2 files 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0021 D-05 Willis-Snowflake to Jackson- 2 files 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0022 D-06 Henry Darwin ADEQ Letter to Thomas Webb 07-20-2012 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0023 D-07 Robin Boyd City of Winslow Letter to Lisa Jackson- 2 files 2012-07-20 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0024 D-08 Jeffers Cattle Co to Jackson- 2 files 2012-07-21 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0025 D-09 McAnally-Phoenix Chamber to Jackson- 2 files 2012-07-23 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0026 D-10 Swarthout-NPC to Jackson- 2 files 2012-07-23 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0027 D-11 Apache Cty to Blumenfeld- 2 files 2012-07-24 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0028

E.  EPA Contractor Documents

   5.1.  UNC Task 5 Report (AZ-BART-Modeling-Protocol) (Earlier versions of the modeling protocol were received by EPA on March 14, 2012 and June 29, 2012. However, only certain portions of this protocol were relied upon by EPA in the proposed rule signed July 2, 2012. The July 16, 2012 version of the modeling protocol, which included in the docket, incorporates only the material relied upon by EPA for the July 2, 2012 proposal.)  2012-07-16

   5.2.  UNC Task 8 Report (Apache-Cholla-Coronado BART Analysis Report)_final (An earlier version of the Task 8 Report was received by EPA on June 28, 2012. However, only certain portions of this report were relied upon by EPA in the proposed rule signed July 2, 2012. The July 16, 2012 version of the report, which included in the docket, incorporates only the material relied upon by EPA for the July 2, 2012 proposal.)  2012-07-16

   5.3.  Jim Staudt CV

F.  EPA Final Products

   6.1.  FCPP Technical Support Document 2010-10-06

   6.2.  Supplemental Cost Analysis  2012-11

   6.3.  Tangentially-fired coal unit SCR retrofit 2012-11

   6.4.  Cholla 2001-03 NOx Emission Data (daily) 2012-11

   6.5.  Cholla 2010-12Q3 NOx Emission Data (monthly) 2012-11

   6.6.  Coronado 2 2011-12Q3 NOx Emission Data (daily) 2012-11

   6.7.  CAMD Emission Data 2001-11 (daily) 2012-11

G.  Additional Documents Considered for Proposed Rulemaking

   7.1.  Consent Decree Between U.S. and SRP (final as entered) 2008-12-19

   7.2.  Coronado Title V Permit (final) 2011-12-16

   7.3.  TSD for Coronado Title V Permit final) 2011-12-16

   7.4.  Technical Literature: Ultra-Low NOx Control 2007-01-01

   7.5.  Erickson, Lisauskas, Licata - What's New in SCRs  2006-05-16

   7.6.  Lani - Nitrogen Oxides Emission Control Options for Coal-Fired EGUs AWMA 2009-05

   7.7.  AEP Apache Title V TSD 2007-05-24

   7.8.  AEP Apache Title V Permit 2007-07-09

   7.9.  Final Title V Permit for Cholla 2012-05-31

   7.10.  Final Title V TSD for Cholla 2012-05-31

   7.11.  Cichanowicz - Implementation Schedule for SCR and FGD 2010-10-01

   7.12.  AZ Corp Commission - Annual Report - Arizona_Electric_Power_Cooperative_Inc 2012-05-14

   7.13.  ECR memo - Impact of Ammonia in Fly Ash 2010-08-31

   7.14.  EPRI H2SO4 report 2010-04

   7.15.  Modeling Files  (Due to the format of some modeling files, they are not available from the electronic docket. These files are available upon request. See the TSD for more information.)

                                                                          G.16. NGS Revised BART Report 2009-01

H.  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Technical Support Document

   8.1.  Technical Support Document 2012-07

   8.2.  Index to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012- 0021 Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans 2012-07

   8.3.  Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Pre-publication version) 2012-07-02

   8.4.  Notice of Additional Public Hearings and Extension of Comment Period, 77 FR 45326 2012-07-31

I.  Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule and Public Hearing Transcripts

   I-01 7-31-2012 Public Hearing, Phoenix AZ 2012-07-31

   I-02 8-14-2012 Public Hearing-Holbrook AZ 2012-08-14

   I-03 Comments received September 17, 2012, from United States Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, Denver CO, from Susan Johnson, DPS, to Thomas Webb, EPA. 2012-09-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0064    I-04 Comments 2012-09-18 Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 	 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0061    I-05 Comments from 2012-09-07 Representative Paul Gosar's Public Meeting 2012-09-07 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0062    I-06 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659 - Thomas Armstrong 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0035    I-07 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659 - Robert Carreira 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0036    I-08 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659  -  Jonathan Gardner, IBEW 2012-08-30 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0037    I-09 Comment on FR Doc # 2012- 18545 - Anonymous 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0040    I-10 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Ralph Score 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0038    I-11 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Laila Amerman 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0039    I-12 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Robert E. Quick, Arizona Mining Association 2012-09-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0041    I-13 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Robert E. Quick, Arizona Mining Association  -  with attachments 2012-09-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0042    I-14 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - CREDO Action mass campaign: 1,955 letters 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0043    I-15 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Micheal G. Dunn, PacifiCorp 2012-09-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0044    I-16 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Christopher Lish 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0045    I-17 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Anonymous 2012-09-26 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0046    I-18 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - T. Ted Cromwell, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0047    I-19 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Kelly J. Barr, Salt River Project (SRP) 1 of 2  -  cover letter and comments 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0048    I-20 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Kelly J. Barr, Salt River Project (SRP) 2 of 2  -  attachments 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0049    I-21 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Mike E. Bowen, New Mexico Mining Association 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0050    I-22 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Kevin Rogers, Arizona Farm Bureau 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0051    I-23 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Susan Kidd, Arizona Public Service (APS) 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0052    I-24 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Earthjustice on behalf of NPCA et al. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0053    I-25 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Mark Ourada, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0054    I-26 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Edwin D. Hill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0055    I-27 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Henry Darwin, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0056    I-28 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Henry Darwin, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)  -  duplicate 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0057    I-29 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520 - Arizona Utilities Group 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0058    I-30 [Not used]

   I-31 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-18520  -  Office of Congressman Jeff Flake

EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0013    I-32 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659  -  James Arndt 2012-08-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0014    I-33 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659  -  Sid Abma 2012-07-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0015    I-34 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659  -  William Tracey 2012-07-27 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0016    I-35 Comment on FR Doc # 2012-17659  -  Ed Rogers 2012-08-02 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0017    I-36 COMMENT letter from EarthJustice to Janet McCabe, June 29, 2012 	 2012-06-29 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0064    I-37 COMMENT: Email from OConnor to Webb, September 5, 2012 and Donez Email to OConnor, September 7, 2012. 2012-09-05 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0065    I-38 COMMENT: AZ White Mtns Mass Comment Campaign, August 2012 2012-08 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0066    I-39 COMMENT: James Arndt, 8-17-2012 2012-08-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0067    I-40 COMMENT via email from Sid Abma to Margo Perez Sullivan July 11, 2012. 2012-07-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0068    I-41 COMMENT via email William Tracey to Margot Perez Sullivan, July 27, 2012. 2012-07-27 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0069    I-42 COMMENT via email Ed Rogers referring to Cholla power plant and visibility in Winslow, Arizona and other areas sent first to Rory Mays, 8-02-2012, then directed to the correct person, Tom Webb. 2012-08-02 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0070    I-43 COMMENT via email Therese North to Tom Webb, 8-02-2012. 2012-08-02 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0071    I-44 COMMENT via email from Richard Low to Jared Blumenfeld, 8-11-2012 2012-08-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0072    I-45 COMMENT via email from Karin and Carole Sitts to Thomas Webb, 8-13-2012. 2012-08-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0073    I-46 COMMENT via email from Melinda Conrad to Thomas Webb, 8-14-2012. 2012-08-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0074    I-47 COMMENT letter from Rep. Jeff Flake to Colleen McKaughan, 8-14-2012. 2012-08-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0075    I-48 COMMENT via email from Randy Murph to Thomas Webb, 8-14-2012. 2012-08-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0076    I-49 COMMENT via email from David Shumway to Thomas Webb, 8-14-2012. 2012-08-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0077    I-50 COMMENT via email from Karlee DeWitt to Thomas Webb, 8-15-2012. 2012-08-15 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0078    I-51 COMMENT from public hearing: David M. Newlin

EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0079    I-52 COMMENT from public hearing: Elizabeth Speck, Benson AZ

EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0080    I-53 COMMENT via email 8-16-2012: Daniel Sawvel, Cochise County AZ 2012-08-16 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0081    I-54 COMMENT via email 8-16-2012: Jamie Stanford to Thomas Webb, 8-16-12. 2012-08-16 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0082    I-55 COMMENT via email 8-17-2012: David Santeford. 2012-08-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0083    I-56 COMMENT via email 8-19-2012: Gary Truschke to Thomas Webb. 2012-08-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0084    I-57 COMMENT via email 8-20-2012: Gary Maurer, CEO, Prescott Chamber of Commerce to Thomas Webb. 2012-08-20 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0085    I-58 COMMENT via email from Emily Regis to Tom Webb August 20, 2012. 2012-08-20 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0086    I-59 COMMENT via email from Don Berry to Jared Blumenfeld, August 29, 2012. 2012-08-29 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0087    I-60 COMMENT via email from Nathan Hatch to Tom Webb, August 29, 2012. 2012-08-29 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0088    I-61 COMMENT via email from Jonathan Gardner to Tom Webb, August 30, 2012. 2012-08-30 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0089    I-62 COMMENT via email from Tim Miller to Tom Webb, September 4, 2012. 2012-09-04 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0090    I-63 COMMENT via email from Leigh A. Verley to Tom Webb, September 10, 2012. 2012-09-10 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0091    I-64 COMMENT via email from Monica Balderrama to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0092    I-65 COMMENT via email from Janice Bernal to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0093    I-66 COMMENT via email from Gail A. Casto to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0094    I-67 COMMENT via email from Bikrham Chaudhary to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0095    I-68 COMMENT via email from Kevin Gin to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0096    I-69 COMMENT via email from Samantha Gooman to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0097    I-70 COMMENT via email from James L. Jones to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0098    I-70 COMMENT via email from Chris Maakestad to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0099    I-71 COMMENT via email from John Shaver to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0100    I-72 COMMENT via email from Cathie Thompson to Tom Webb, September 11, 2012. 2012-09-11 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0101    I-73 COMMENT via email from Danny Brown to Tom Webb, September 12, 2012. 2012-09-12 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0102    I-74 COMMENT via email from Lori Fonzi to Tom Webb, September 12, 2012. 2012-09-12 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0103    I-75 COMMENT via email from Russell McLeod to Tom Webb, September 12, 2012. 2012-09-12 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0104    I-76 COMMENT via email from Jamie R. Stanford to Tom Webb, September 12, 2012. 2012-09-12 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0105    I-77 COMMENT via email from Tammy Gehris to Tom Webb, September 13, 2012. 2012-09-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0106    I-78 COMMENT via email from Kirk Gray to Tom Webb, September 13, 2012. 2012-09-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0107    I-79 COMMENT via email from Pat Middlebrook to Tom Webb, September 13, 2012. 2012-09-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0108    I-80 COMMENT via email from Pat David Michael Paul to Tom Webb, September 13, 2012. 2012-09-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0109    I-81 COMMENT via email from Kenneth R Cool III to Tom Webb, September 13, 2012. 2012-09-13 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0110    I-82 COMMENT via email from Stuart D. Kershner, PhD to Tom Webb, September 14, 2012. 2012-09-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0111    I-83 COMMENT via email from Mark Woods to Tom Webb, September 14, 2012. 2012-09-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0112    I-84 COMMENT via email from Caron Johnson to Tom Webb, September 15, 2012. 2012-09-15 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0113    I-85 COMMENT via email from Leslie E Thompson to Tom Webb, September 16, 2012. 2012-09-16 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0114    I-86 COMMENT via email from Robyn Daughenbaugh to Tom Webb, September 17, 2012. 2012-09-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0115    I-87 COMMENT via email from Glen Manygoats to Tom Webb, September 17, 2012. 2012-09-17 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0116    I-88 COMMENT via email from Kevin Barnes to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0117    I-89 COMMENT via email from Chris Barton to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0118    I-90 COMMENT via email from Lori Fonzi to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0119    I-91 COMMENT via email from Geoff Oldfather to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0120    I-92 COMMENT via email from Vincent Yazzie to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0121    I-93 COMMENT via email from Stephen B. Estitty to Tom Webb, October 3, 2012. 2012-10-03 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0122    I-94 COMMENT via email from Maureen Creegan to Tom Webb, August 24, 2012. 2012-08-24 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0123    I-95 COMMENT via email from Gretchen Conger to Tom Webb, August 29, 2012. 2012-08-29 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0124    I-96 COMMENT via email from Barbara Stockwell to Tom Webb, September 14, 2012. 2012-09-14 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0125    I-97 COMMENT via email from Michelle Freeark (AEPCO) to Tom Webb, September 18, 2012. 2012-09-18 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0126    I-98 COMMENT via hardcopy from Dilleen_Kodish_Smith (Earthjustice) Letter to Janet McCabe dated June 29, 2012. 2012-07-29 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0127    I-99 COMMENT via hardcopy from Lavonda Begay to Jared Blumenfeld July 19, 2012. 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0128    I-100 COMMENT via hardcopy from Karl Guzzo to Jared Blumenfeld July 19, 2012. 2012-07-19 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0129    I-101 COMMENT via hardcopy from Ed Pahl to Jared Blumenfeld July 23, 2012. 2012-07-23 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0130    I-102 COMMENT via hardcopy from Gary Pierce to Jared Blumenfeld July 23, 2012. 2012-07-23 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0131    I-103 COMMENT Public Hearing transcript, Benson AZ, August 15, 2012. 2012-08-15 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0167    I-104 Comment via hardcopy from AZ Rock Products Assoc to Jackson

   I-105 Comment via hardcopy from Benson Unified Sch. Distr #9

    [Reserved]

J.  Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking

   J-01 Coal Availability Study -- Standing Rock Area, San Juan Basin Northwest New Mexico by Gretchen K. Hoffman and Glen E. Jones, Open-file Report 540, July, 2011. 2011-07 EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021-0063    J-02 Letter re Potential Force Majeure -- SRP Consent Decree_(41554364)_(2) 2012-08-09

   J-03 Pierce_Air Response_July 26 2012 2012-07-26

   J-04 2012-06-26 Kelly J Barr Esq Salt River Letter to Deborah Jordan 2012-06-26

   J-05 2012-06-29 Michelle R Freeark Arizona's G & T Cooperatives Letter to Deborah Jordan 2012-06-29

   J-06 Barr_Air Response_July 26 2012 2012-07-26

   J-07 Burns_Air Response_July 26 2012 2012-07-26

   J-08 Burns_Air Response_July 26 2012 2012-07-26

   J-09 Burns_Air Response_July 26 2012 2012-07-26

   J-10 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 2011

   J-11 Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.) 2011

   J-12 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735) 1993-10-04

   J-13 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629) 1994-02-16

   J-14 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885) 1997-04-23

   J-15 Executive Order 13132: Federalism (64 FR 43255) 1999-08-10

   J-16 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249) 2000-11-09

   J-17 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355) 2001-05-22

   J-18 Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821) 2011-01-21

   J-19 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 USC 3701 et seq.) 2011

   J-20 Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 2011

   J-21 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 2011

   J-22 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) 2011

   J-23 AEPCO Apache Generating Station BART Determination Economic Impacts 11_07_2012

   J-24 Apache Station Incremental Cost Assessment Report and spreadsheet  -  2 files 2012-11-12

   J-25 Haldor-Topsoe SCR Experience List 10-09 2009-10

   J-26 Hitachi SCR experience list

   J-27 Ted Kurtides, Lessons Learned from SCR Reactor Retrofit

   J-28 Institute of Clean Air Companies, SCR White Paper, May 2009 2009-05

   J-29 Design and Operation of Coal-fired TURBO furnaces for NOx control 1978-11 1978-11

   J-30 An Overview of Riley Stoker's Burner Development Efforts for NOx Control 1983-04 1983-04

   J-31 Low NOx Combustion System Solutions for Wall Fired,T-Fired, and Turbo Fired Boilers 2006-08 2006-08

   J-32 readme_modeling_files_NFR1

   J-33 2006FinalDryBottomPC_FGD_FFpmSpeciationProfile_Cholla-Unit2-filtPM

   J-34 BRODE_CA

   J-35 Cholla_mrg23_visx_table

   J-36 Cholla_NFR_remodeling

   J-37 Coronado_base_p_visx

   J-38 FLAG_2010

   J-39 modeling_docket_list

   J-40 Arizona BART Eligibility TSD  (Supporting Documentation on Emissions Unit Bart Eligibility Analysis) 2006

   J-41 Memorandum from Jeffrey Cole (RTI International) to Bill Maxwell (EPA) regarding NESHAP MACT Floor Analysis for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Final Rule"  2011-12-16

   J-42 EPA, Transport Rule Engineering Feasibility Response to Comments, Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2009‐0491‐4529,  2011-07-06

   J-43 Arizona Department of Transportation, Approved Materials Source List, Fly Ash, Natural Pozzolan, and Lime, Revised  2012-07-10

   J-44 In re: Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District, Order Denying Review In Part and Remanding In Part, NPDES Appeal Nos.08-11 to 08-18 & 09-06 2010-05- 28

   J-45 EPA's Technical Information Document 09, "Methods 201 and 201A in Presence of Water Droplets"  1991-09-09

   J-46 CEMS Cost Calculation 2012-11

   J-47 Timeline of all tribal consultations on BART.docx  2012-07-02

   J-48 History of Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals Under the Regional Haze Rule 2012-11-14

   J-49 American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1  2002

   J-50 Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653  2005

   J-51 Central Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531  1993

   J-52 Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146  2001

   J-53 Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. E.PA, 675 F.3d 917  2012

   J-54 Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174  2012

   J-55 Texas v. EPA, 690 F.3d 670  2012

   J-56 Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60  1975

   J-57 Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246  1976

   J-58 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333  2006

   J-59 EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7  2012

   J-60 NPCA v. EPA, Complaint (D.D.C. Case 1:11-cv-01548) 2011-08-29

   J-61 NPCA v. EPA, Consent Decree (D.D.C. Case 1:11-cv-01548) Dkt # 21 2012-03-30

   J-62 NPCA v. EPA, D.D.C. Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.D.C. Case 1:11-cv-01548) Dkt # 35 2012-05-25

   J-63 NPCA v. EPA, Docket (D.D.C. Case 1:11-cv-01548)  2012

K.  Notice of Final Rulemaking and Response to Comments

K.1. Notice of Final Rulemaking 2012-11-15

K.2. Final Index to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012- 0021 2012-11-15


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14306-14307]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 17, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

    Dated: March 10, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05473 Filed 3-10-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67895-67898]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24541]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2022-0802; 10223-01-R1]

Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities in
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; State of Vermont; Notice
of Self-Certification Program Authorization

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that on October 1, 2022, the State of
Vermont was deemed authorized under section 404(a) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to administer and enforce requirements
for the lead-based paint pre-renovation education and renovation,
repair and painting (RRP) program. This document also announces that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comment during a
45-day public comment period, and it is providing an opportunity to
request a public hearing within the first 15 days of this comment
period on whether Vermont's program is at least as protective as the
federal program and provides for adequate enforcement. This document
also announces that the authorization of the Vermont pre-renovation
education and renovation, repair and painting program, which was deemed
authorized by regulation and statute, will continue without further
notice unless the EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received
during the comment period, disapproves the Vermont program application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2022. In
addition, a public hearing request must be submitted on or before
November 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
R01-RCRA-2022-0802, at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments received
may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including
any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Triebwasser, RCRA Corrective
Action and TSCA Section; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division;
U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail code 07-WI),
Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-
2022-0802 at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), 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. The 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). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.

II. General Information

A. What action is the agency taking?

    The EPA is announcing that the State of Vermont was deemed
authorized under section 404(a) of TSCA, 15 United States Code (U.S.C.)
2684(a) and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2), to administer and enforce
requirements for an RRP program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of
TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3) on October 1, 2022. The 402(c)(3) program
ensures that training providers are accredited to teach renovation
classes, that individuals performing renovation activities are properly
trained and certified as renovators, that firms are certified as
renovation firms, and that specific work practices are followed during
renovation activities. Vermont submitted an application under section
404 of TSCA requesting authorization to administer and enforce
requirements for an RRP program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of
TSCA. Vermont's application included self-certification that the
program is at least as protective of human health and the environment
as the federal program and provides for adequate enforcement.
Therefore, pursuant to section 404(a) of TSCA and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2),
the Vermont RRP program is deemed authorized as of the date of
submission and until such time as the agency disapproves the program
application or withdraws program authorization. Pursuant to section
404(b) of TSCA and 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2), the EPA is providing notice,
opportunity for public comment and opportunity for a public hearing on
whether the state program application and subsequent administrative
rule changes are at least as protective as the federal program and
provide for adequate enforcement. If a hearing is requested and
granted, the EPA will issue a Federal Register notice announcing the
date, time, and place of the hearing.

B. What is EPA's authority in taking this action?

    On October 28, 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992, Public Law 102-550, became law. Title X of that statute was the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. That act
amended TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601-2695d) by adding Title IV (15 U.S.C. 2681-
2692), entitled ``Lead Exposure Reduction.'' On April 22, 2008, the EPA
promulgated the final TSCA section 402(c)(3) regulations governing
renovation activities (73 FR 21692). These regulations require that in
order to do renovation activities for compensation, renovators must
first be properly trained and certified, must be associated with a
certified renovation firm, and must follow specific work practice
standards, including recordkeeping requirements. The EPA believes that
regulation of renovation activities will help to reduce the exposures
that cause serious lead poisonings, especially in children under age 6
who are particularly susceptible to the hazards of lead.
    Under section 404 of TSCA, a state may seek authorization from the
EPA to administer and enforce its own RRP program in lieu of the
federal program. The regulation governing the authorization of a state
program under section 402 of TSCA are codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart Q. States that choose to apply for program authorization must
submit a complete application to the appropriate regional EPA office
for review. Those applications will be reviewed by the EPA within 180
days of receipt of the complete application. To receive EPA approval, a
state must demonstrate that its program is at least as protective of
human health and the environment as the federal program, and provides
for adequate enforcement, as required by section 404(b) of TSCA. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q provide the detailed
requirements a state program must meet in order to obtain EPA approval.
    A state may choose to certify that its own RRP program meets the
requirements for EPA approval, by submitting a letter signed by the
Governor or Attorney General stating that the program is at least as
protective of human health and the environment as the federal program
and provides for adequate enforcement. Upon submission of such a
certification letter, the program is deemed authorized pursuant to TSCA
section 404(a) and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2). This authorization is
withdrawn, however, if the EPA disapproves the application or withdraws
the program authorization.

C. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, to entities
offering Lead Safe Renovation courses, and to firms and individuals
engaged in renovation and remodeling activities of pre-1978 housing and
child-occupied facilities in the State of Vermont. Individuals and
firms falling under the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes in the table below may be affected by these rules.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NAICS code                          Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
236118...............................  Residential Remodelers.

238210...............................  Electrical Contractors and Other
                                        Wiring Installation Contractors.
238310...............................  Drywall and Insulation
                                        Contractors.
238220...............................  Plumbing, Heating, and Air-
                                        Conditioning Contractors.
238320...............................  Painting and Wall Covering
                                        Contractors.
531110...............................  Lessors of Residential Buildings
                                        and Dwellings.
531311...............................  Residential Property Managers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this notice could also be
affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. State Program Description Summary

A. Vermont Program Summary

Components of the Vermont RRPM Program
    The Vermont program is based on the Vermont Regulations for Lead
Control (VRLC) pursuant to the authority conferred Chapter 38 of the
Vermont Statutes Annotated. Chapter 38 was amended in 2018 to provide
the Vermont Department of Health with the authority to develop a
program to administer and enforce the lead-based paint activities and
renovation, repair, painting and maintenance (RRPM) activities. The
VRLC, first promulgated in 2000 and last amended in 2021, provide the
framework for RRPM-RRP activities.
Activities and Buildings Covered
    The VRLC cover RRPM activities in pre-1978 child-occupied
facilities and target housing in Vermont, except zero-bedroom dwellings
or dwellings reserved for the exclusive use of elderly or disabled,
unless a child under six years of age resides or is expected to reside
there.
    Unless the area of paint disturbed is less than 1 square foot of
interior paint per room and less than 20 square feet of exterior paint,
or 1 square foot or less of exterior paint for rental target housing
and child-care facilities, and unless the work does not involve window
replacement or demolition of painted surface areas, property owners are
required to hire a licensed RRPM Firm that uses licensed RRPM
Supervisors to conduct RRPM activities.
    Childcare operators can perform RRPM activities on their own
childcare facilities if they have completed the RRPM Supervisor
training and have been granted certification as an Uncompensated
Childcare Operator by the Department of Health. Certification as an
Uncompensated Childcare Operator has the same requirements as a
Licensed Lead-Safe RRPM Firm, although Uncompensated Childcare
Operators cannot provide RRPM activities for hire, and cannot provide
on-the-job training or supervise RRPM activities.
Certification and Licensing Requirements
    Entities can be licensed by the Vermont Department of Health as a
Lead-Safe RRPM Firm by applying on the forms provided by the
Department, assuring that at least one employee is a Licensed Lead-Safe
RRPM Supervisor, and identifying whether they have previously had any
lead-related enforcement actions taken against them.
    Individuals can apply to the Department of Health for a Lead-Safe
RRPM Supervisor license after successfully completing an 8-hour
training from a Vermont-accredited training provider or a training
provider accredited by EPA or an EPA RRP authorized state, provided the
individual received the Vermont-specific training module and
examination.
    To be certified by the Department of Health, an Uncompensated
Childcare Operator must successfully complete the same training as the
Licensed Lead-Safe RRPM Supervisor. The difference between the Lead-
Safe RRPM Supervisor license and the Uncompensated Childcare Operator
certification is that the Certified Uncompensated Childcare Operator
does not pay a fee and is issued a certificate rather than a license.
Training Course Accreditation Requirements
    To obtain accreditation for a lead-based paint training course,
including the RRPM Supervisor course, training providers are required
to submit detailed information to the Vermont Department of Health,
including information about curriculum, teaching methods, equipment,
and instructors. Vermont RRPM training requirements include: all work
practices required by the EPA to safely handle lead-based paint (plus
Vermont-specific elements); a mandatory hands-on component; and a
closed-book examination, except for online refresher training courses.
The Department will conduct an on-site observation and evaluation of
the training course and contents, its instructors, equipment, and
facilities or will review a representative video of the course for
evaluation to ensure the course meets State criteria. Vermont's
statutory authority allows for the revocation, modification or
suspension of any permit issued by the Department, including an
accreditation.
Information Distribution Requirements
    Vermont requires the Lead-Safe RRPM Firm or Certified Uncompensated
Childcare Operator to distribute the Renovate Right pamphlet with a
Vermont specific addendum to the owner and occupants of the property
being renovated, repaired or painted, and parents or guardians of
children in childcare facilities, no more than 60 days before RRPM
activities are scheduled to be conducted.
    For RRPM activities affecting common areas in target housing or in
child occupied facilities, informational signs that describe the
general nature and locations of the RRPM activities and the anticipated
completion date may be posted rather than provided in writing to
affected occupants or parents/guardians. For work in common areas of
target housing if the firm notified those affected in writing, the RRPM
Firm or Certified Uncompensated Childcare Operator must provide a
written notice to all owners and occupants if the scope and timeframe
of the RRPM activities change.
Work Practice Standards
    RRPM work practice standards are found at VLRC 7.3. All RRPM
activities shall be performed by a licensed lead-safe RRPM firm and
supervised by a licensed lead-safe RRPM supervisor or by a certified
uncompensated child-care operator. Once the RRPM activities begin, the
Licensed Lead-Safe RRPM Supervisor or Certified Uncompensated Childcare
Operator is responsible for ensuring that the site is secured and
proper signage is posted to prevent exposure to occupants,
contamination of

their belongings and dispersion of lead dust into other areas.
Containment generally includes closing windows, sealing doors and
ducts, covering floors/carpets and covering furniture left in the room.
The RRPM Firm is required to have a Licensed Lead-Safe RRPM Supervisor
on site at all times when RRPM work is underway. Once RRPM activities
are complete, proper disposal of waste and a thorough cleaning of the
area is required. Following cleaning, the Licensed Lead-Safe RRPM
Supervisor or Certified Uncompensated Childcare operator is responsible
for conducting a visual clearance and cleaning verification. Certain
dangerous work practices found at VLRC 5.1.2 are also prohibited.
Record Keeping Requirements
    RRPM recordkeeping requirements are found at VLRC 7.4. All licensed
Lead-Safe RRPM firms must retain records related to RRPM activities for
a period of six years. Examples of records that shall be retained
include: lead inspection reports, proof of pre-renovation education
distribution, documentation of compliance with RRPM work practice
activities, on-the-job training, and post renovation cleaning
verification. If requested, the licensed RRPM firm or Uncompensated
Child Care Operator must make all records documenting compliance
available to the Department.
    The Vermont PRE and RRPM Programs meet or exceed all EPA program
elements for protecting the public. Areas where Vermont's RRPM program
will exceed EPA Requirements for protecting the public:
     The RRPM Firm is required to have a Licensed Lead-Safe
RRPM Supervisor on site the entire time RRPM activities are being
conducted.
     Vermont's definition of RRP-regulated building spaces
includes all spaces generally accessible to residents/users/occupants/
guests including, but not limited to, hallways, stairways, porches,
laundry and recreational rooms, playgrounds, community centers,
boundary fences, basements, and sheds. This is more restrictive than
the EPA definition.
     Vermont's threshold for what constitutes a minor RRPM
activity on the interior (1 square foot per room) is lower than EPA's
(6 square feet per room). Further, Vermont lowers the exterior minor
RRPM activity threshold for childcare facilities and rental target
housing to 1 square foot, as opposed to EPA's 20 square feet.
     Vermont does not allow for the use of test kits to
determine lead-free status, but rather requires a licensed lead-based
paint risk assessor to determine the presence of lead-based paint.

IV. Federal Overfiling

    Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate
or fail or refuse to comply with any requirement of an approved state
program. Therefore, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement
authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to
comply with, any requirement of an authorized state program.

V. Withdrawal of Authorization

    Pursuant to section 404(c) of TSCA, the EPA Administrator may
withdraw authorization of a State or Indian Tribal renovation, repair
and painting program, and/or a lead-based paint pre-renovation
education program, after notice and opportunity for corrective action,
if the program is not being administered or enforced in compliance with
standards, regulations, and other requirements established under the
authorization. The procedures U.S. EPA will follow for the withdrawal
of an authorization are found at 40 CFR 745.324(i).

David Cash,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022-24541 Filed 11-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10330-10333]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 884

[Docket No. FDA-2014-M-1957]

Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices;
Classification of the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment
System

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final order.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the
Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System into class II
(special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device
are identified in this order, and will be part of the codified language
for the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System
classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II
(special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness of the device.

DATES: This order is effective February 26, 2015. The classification
was applicable June 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G120, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were
not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of
enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred
to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute
into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain
in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the
device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues
an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in
accordance with section 513(i), to a predicate device that does not
require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices
are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket
notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-
144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to
classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of
the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has
not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an
order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1),
the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a
premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a
request for classification under the first procedure, the person
determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base
a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a
classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person
submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure,
FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA
identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable
basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device, or if FDA
determines that the device submitted is not of ``low-moderate risk'',
or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and
special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
    In response to a request to classify a device under either
procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will
classify the device by written order within 120 days. This
classification will be the initial classification of the device.
    On August 3, 2012, FDA issued an order classifying the EEVA System
into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device
that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate
commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device
which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On August
23, 2012, Auxogyn, Inc., submitted a de novo request for classification
of the EEVA System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The
manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II
(Ref. 1).
    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed
the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for
classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA
classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special
controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the
information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device
can be classified into class II with the establishment of special
controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general
controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
    Therefore, on June 6, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding Sec.  884.6195 (21 CFR
884.6195).
    Following the effective date of this final classification
administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification
(510(k)) for an Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System
will need to comply with the special controls named in the final
administrative order.
    The device is assigned the generic name Assisted Reproduction
Embryo Image Assessment System, and it is identified as a prescription
device that is designed to obtain and analyze light microscopy images
of developing embryos. This device provides information to aid in the
selection of embryo(s) for transfer when there are multiple embryos
deemed suitable for transfer or freezing.
    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with
this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks
in Table 1:

 Table 1--Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System Risks and
                           Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Identified risk                    Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damage or Destruction of the Embryo....  Non-Clinical Performance
                                          Testing.
                                         Software Verification,
                                          Validation & Hazard Analysis.
                                         Clinical Testing.
                                         Electromagnetic Compatibility
                                          Testing.
                                         Electrical Safety Testing.
                                         Labeling.
                                         Training.
Infection (Contamination of Device,      Cleaning and Disinfection
 Labware, and Incubator).                 Validation.
                                         Labeling.
                                         Training.
Incorrect Embryo Development Prediction  Non-Clinical Performance
                                          Testing.
                                         Software Verification,
                                          Validation & Hazard Analysis.
                                         Clinical Testing.
                                         Labeling.
                                         Training.
Electromagnetic Interference/Electrical  Electromagnetic Compatibility
 Safety Issues.                           Testing.
                                         Electrical Safety Testing.
                                         Labeling.
Use Error..............................  Labeling.
                                         Training.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to
the general controls, address these risks to health and provide
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:

 Clinical performance testing must demonstrate a reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device to predict
embryo development. Classification performance (sensitivity and
specificity) and predictive accuracy (Positive Predictive Value and
Negative Predictive Value) must be

assessed at the subject and embryo levels.
 Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be
provided.
 Non-clinical performance testing data must demonstrate the
performance characteristics of the device. Testing must include the
following:
    [cir] Total light exposure and output testing;
    [cir] a safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-
case) light exposure to embryos, which also includes the safety of the
light wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
    [cir] simulated-use testing;
    [cir] Mouse Embryo Assay testing to assess whether device operation
impacts growth and development of mouse embryos to the blastocyst
stage;
    [cir] cleaning and disinfection validation of reusable components;
    [cir] package integrity and transit testing;
    [cir] hardware fail-safe validation;
    [cir] electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic compatibility
testing; and
    [cir] prediction algorithm reproducibility.
 Labeling must include the following:
    [cir] A detailed summary of clinical performance testing, including
any adverse events;
    [cir] specific instructions, warnings, precautions, and training
needed for safe use of the device;
    [cir] appropriate electromagnetic compatibility information;
    [cir] validated methods and instructions for cleaning and
disinfection of reusable components; and
    [cir] information identifying compatible cultureware and explain
how they are used with the device.

    An Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System is a
prescription device restricted to patient use only upon the
authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use
the device. (See 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).)
    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification
is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has
determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification
requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must
submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device,
which contains information about the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System they intend to market.

II. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final administrative order establishes special controls that
refer to previously approved collections of information found in other
FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of
information in part 807, subpart E regarding premarket notification
submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling,
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

1. K120427: De Novo Request from Auxogyn, Inc., dated August 23,
2012.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884

    Medical devices, Obstetrical and Gynecological devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
884 is amended as follows:

PART 884--OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 884 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

0
2. Section 884.6195 is added to subpart G to read as follows:

Sec.  884.6195  Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System.

    (a) Identification. An Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System is a prescription device that is designed to obtain
and analyze light microscopy images of developing embryos. This device
provides information to aid in the selection of embryo(s) for transfer
when there are multiple embryos deemed suitable for transfer or
freezing.
    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
control(s) for this device are:
    (1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device to predict embryo
development. Classification performance (sensitivity and specificity)
and predictive accuracy (Positive Predictive Value and Negative
Predictive Value) must be assessed at the subject and embryo levels.
    (2) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be
provided.
    (3) Non-clinical performance testing data must demonstrate the
performance characteristics of the device. Testing must include the
following:
    (i) Total light exposure and output testing;
    (ii) A safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-
case) light exposure to embryos, which also includes the safety of the
light wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
    (iii) Simulated-use testing;
    (iv) Mouse Embryo Assay testing to assess whether device operation
impacts growth and development of mouse embryos to the blastocyst
stage;
    (v) Cleaning and disinfection validation of reusable components;
    (vi) Package integrity and transit testing;
    (vii) Hardware fail-safe validation;
    (viii) Electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic
compatibility testing; and
    (ix) Prediction algorithm reproducibility.
    (4) Labeling must include the following:
    (i) A detailed summary of clinical performance testing, including
any adverse events;
    (ii) Specific instructions, warnings, precautions, and training
needed for safe use of the device
    (iii) Appropriate electromagnetic compatibility information;
    (iv) Validated methods and instructions for cleaning and
disinfection of reusable components; and
    (v) Information identifying compatible cultureware and explain how
they are used with the device.

    Dated: February 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03934 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 33283-33286]
[DOCID:fr10jy09-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60216; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Amending Exchange Rules To Allow Customers To Transmit Orders on the
Exchange With Settlement Instructions of ``Cash,'' ``Next Day,'' and
``Seller's Option'' Directly to a Floor Broker for Manual Execution

July 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 23, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 several Exchange rules to allow
customers to transmit orders with settlement instructions for other
than regular way settlement, i.e., settling on the third business day
following the trade date. Such orders must be transmitted to a Floor
broker for manual handling on the Exchange. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to allow customers to transmit orders for
execution on the Exchange with the settlement instructions of ``cash'',
``next day'' and ``seller's option'' (collectively referred to herein
as ``non-regular way settlement'') directly to a Floor broker for
manual execution. Specifically, the Exchange seeks to adopt Rule 14
(Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders) to provide that
orders with these types of settlement instructions may only be
submitted directly to a Floor broker. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to add references to Rule 14 to several Exchange rules which
relate in some way to these settlement instructions.
    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of the NYSE Amex LLC (formerly the American Stock
Exchange).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NYSE Amex-2009-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On March 13, 2009, the Exchange's amended rule became operative to
require that all orders submitted to Exchange be submitted for regular
way settlement (i.e., settlement on the third business day following
trade date).\5\ Prior to that requirement, the Exchange allowed market
participants to submit orders that contained non-regular way settlement
instructions directly to the Exchange matching/execution engine
(Display Book), or to a Floor broker for representation. Cash
settlement instructions required delivery of the securities the same
day as the transaction. Next day settlement instructions required
delivery of the securities on the first business day following the
transaction. Orders that had settlement instructions of seller's option
afforded the seller the right to deliver the security or bond at any
time within a specified period, ranging from not less than two business
days to not more than 180 days for stocks and not less than two
business days and no more than 60 days for U.S. government securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59446 (February
25, 2009), 74 FR 9323 (March 3, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-17). The
Exchange notes that the implementation of the changes described in
this filing continue to be made on a security by security basis and,
to date, are not operative in every security traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an order containing non-regular way settlement instructions was
sent to a Floor broker for representation, then the Floor broker was
responsible for going to the post where the security traded to effect
the execution of that order. However, Display Book electronically
submitted orders that contained non-regular way settlement instructions
were ineligible for immediate and automatic execution. Rather, the
orders bypassed the Display Book, and were printed on paper at the
Designated Market Makers' (``DMMs'') post locations, along with other
administrative messages. Thereafter, the orders containing non-regular
way settlement instructions required the DMM and the trading assistant
to realize that the document printed was in fact an order which in some
instances caused delay in the execution of the order. The DMM was then
responsible for the manual execution of the order. The manual
intervention required by the DMM and trading assistant at the post
location in the processing of orders containing non-regular way
settlement instructions put the orders at the very real risk of
``missing the market'' as a result of the current speed of order
execution in the Exchange market.
    In addition to the risk of ``missing the market'', orders
containing non-regular way settlement instructions were generally
infrequently used by market participants for much of the trading
calendar.\6\ The Exchange therefore provided that only orders for
regular way execution be submitted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchanges review of the different types of orders
received during the week of May 12, 2008 through May 16, 2008 showed
that there were on average 28 cash orders (with an average of 1,653
shares per day), 48 next day orders (average of 763 shares per day)
and 2 seller's option orders (average of 2,839 shares per day)
utilized by market participants each day. By comparison, for May
2008, the Exchange received an average of 92.2 million orders a day.
Even during the last five trading days of 2007, when the most cash,
next day and seller's option orders are received, the average per
day submissions were 123 for cash (average of 896 shares per day),
199 for next day (average of 1,848 shares per day) and 10 for
seller's option (average of 11,679 shares per day). The Exchange did
however, execute an atypical amount of shares submitted with cash,
next day and seller's option settlement instructions on December
30th and 31st of 2008. Specifically, on December 30, 2008, 126,504
shares were executed on a cash settlement basis, 10,284,879 shares
for next day settlement and 10,000,000 shares for seller's option
settlement. In addition, there were 8,110,228 shares executed for
cash settlement on December 31, 2008. The Exchange maintains that
this level of activity was reflective of the economic events of 2008
and is unrelated to usual trading patterns for these settlement
types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange customers, however, have expressed that certain trading
strategies and/or the expiration of certain trading instrument (e.g.
rights and warrants) require the ability to submit orders to the
Exchange that contain instructions for execution with non-regular way
settlement. To accommodate the needs of its customers, the Exchange
proposes to allow orders containing non-regular way settlement
instructions to be transmitted directly to a Floor broker for manual
order handling.
Proposed Floor Broker Handling of Cash, Next Day, Seller's Option
Settlement Instructions
    The Exchange's commitment to provide its market participants with
immediate and automatic execution in the most efficient manner requires
the establishment of a separate order handling protocol for orders that
contain non-regular way settlement instructions. Prior to the rule
changes proposed in SR-NYSE-2009-17, the required manual intervention
by the DMMs and DMM trading assistants did not provide for efficient
order handling protocol because it put the orders at the very real risk
of ``missing the market'' as a result of the current speed of order
execution in the Exchange market. However, the Exchange recognizes that
that there may be a continuing need for the availability of orders with
non-regular way settlement instructions in its marketplace. To that
end, the Exchange has designed a method of entry for these orders that
will involve minimal manual handling by DMMs.
    The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt NYSE Rule 14 (``Non-
Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders'') to allow customers to
directly transmit an order containing instructions for cash, next day
and seller's option settlement as described above to a Floor broker for
representation in the trading crowd.\7\ DMMs will not have order
handling responsibility for these orders and Exchange systems that
route orders to the Display Book will not accept orders containing non-
regular way instructions. Routing orders to Floor brokers would then be
the only acceptable way for orders with non-regular way settlement
instructions to be transmitted to the Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that as currently configured, the only
Exchange system that will accept orders with non-regular way
instructions is the Broker Booth Support System (``BBSS''). Thus,
these types of orders cannot be transmitted directly to a Floor
broker's hand-held device. In addition, odd-lot orders with non-
regular way settlement instructions will not be accepted in BBSS
and, therefore, will not be permitted.
    \8\ On June 10, 2009, the Exchange implemented this proposal
after submitting a draft of this filing to the Commission, but prior
to formal submission and receipt of a waiver of the 30-day delayed
operative date.

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

    Proposed Rule 14 will define the acceptable non-regular way
settlement instructions valid on the Exchange. An order submitted with
cash settlement instructions would require delivery of the securities
on the same day as the trade date. Next day settlement instructions
would require delivery of the securities on the first business day
following the trade date. Orders that have settlement instructions of
seller's option would afford the seller the right to deliver the
security or bond at any time within a specified period, ranging from
not less than two business days to not more than 60 days for securities
and not less than two business days and no more than 60 days for U.S.
government securities. The Exchange modified from the previously
effective version of this rule the maximum days for a seller's option
from 180 days to 60 days to reflect current industry practice for
securities other than U.S. government securities.
    Further, pursuant to proposed NYSE Rule 14, a customer that
requests the execution of an order pursuant to non-regular way
settlement instructions of cash, next day or seller's option must send
the order directly to a Floor broker booth location on the Floor of the
NYSE. A Floor broker that receives an order containing settlement
instructions for cash, next day or seller's option must enter the order
into broker systems prior to representing the order in the trading
crowd to comply with his or her FESC obligations.\9\ Thereafter, the
Floor broker would be allowed to represent the order in the trading
crowd.\10\ Executions by the Floor broker of order containing non-
regular way settlement would be reported to the Consolidated Tape with
cash, next day or seller's option transaction indicators as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FESC stands for ``Front End Systemic Capture''. Under NYSE
Rule 123 (Records of Orders) members and member organizations are
required to enter the details of an order, including any
modification or cancellation, into a system which electronically
timestamps the time of entry prior to representing or executing that
order on the Floor.
    \10\ The Exchange notes that Floor brokers who accept customer
orders with non-regular way settlement instructions will have the
same best execution responsibilities in representing these orders as
they would for regular way orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rules 64 (Bonds,
Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks), 66 (U.S. Government Securities),\11\
130 (Overnight Comparison of Exchange Transactions), to allow for non-
regular way settlement as prescribed by proposed Rule 14. The Exchange
further proposes to amend Rules 137 (Written Contracts) and 137A
(Samples of Written Contracts) to include seller's options in written
contracts. In addition, the Exchange further proposes to reinstate
reserved Rules 73, 177 and 179 to re-establish ``Seller's Option'',
``Delivery Time--`Cash' Contracts'' and ``Seller's Option'' in order to
specify precedence and delivery times for transactions made pursuant to
cash and seller's option settlement instructions. The Exchange further
proposes to amend NYSE Rule 189 (Unit of Delivery) to specify that the
buyer shall not be required to accept a portion of a lot of securities
contracted for before the seller's option expiration date. NYSE Rules
235 (Ex-Dividends, Ex-Rights), 236 (Ex-Warrants), 257 (Deliveries After
``Ex'' Date) and 282 (Buy-In Procedures) to add specific provisions
related to orders submitted with cash settlement instructions. NYSE
Rules 241 (Interest--Added to Contract Price) to add specific
provisions related to orders submitted with seller's option settlement
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Currently, the Exchange does not trade U.S. Government
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 64, the Exchange proposes to add provisions
that were previously a part of the Rule before the Exchange eliminated
non-regular way settlement instructions under SR-NYSE-2009-17.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to:

    (1) Add paragraph (a)(ii) to require that on the second and
third business days preceding the final day for subscription, bids
and offers in rights may only be made for next day settlement, and
may only be made for cash settlement on the day preceding the final
day for subscription;
    (2) Add paragraph (b) to require that all trades for other than
regular way settlement that are more than .10 point away from the
regular way bid or offer must be approved by a Floor Official,
except that this will be expanded to .25 during the last trading
week of the calendar year; and
    (3) Add paragraph (c) to require that while for seller's option
trades the settlement date is established in business days, they
must be reported to the tape in calendar days.

    The Exchange believes these provisions are necessary to continue to
regulate non-regular way trades, as they were before they were
eliminated.
    The Exchange also proposes to add references to proposed NYSE Rule
14 and non-regular way settlement instructions to those rules that have
provisions that implicate settlement instructions. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to add the reference to NYSE Rules 12 (``Business
Day'') and 123 (Record of Orders).
Odd Lot Orders
    Proposed NYSE Rule 14 will only permit non-regular way settlement
instructions for round lot orders and orders that are comprised of a
round lot and an odd lot, i.e., partial round lot orders (``PRLs'').
Odd lot orders with non-regular way settlement instructions will not be
acceptable for execution on the Exchange. Exchange systems, order
execution and post settlement processing will not support non-regular
way settlement for odd lots. PRL orders submitted with non-regular way
settlement instructions will be executed pursuant to the provisions of
proposed Rule 124.40 (ii). Proposed Rule 124.40 (ii) will require that
the odd-lot portion of the PRL will be executed at the same price of
the last round lot in the order to better facilitate the post
settlement processing of these orders.
    The Exchange believes that the instant proposal will meet the needs
of its customers to submit orders for non-regular way settlement in a
manner that will provide effective representation for the customer in
the Exchange's current market.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
\12\ that an exchange have rules that are 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. The instant
filing accomplishes these goals by restoring the ability of Exchange
market participants to enter orders with other than ``regular way''
settlement instructions, and allow these orders to be represented at
the point of sale in the Exchange's auction market while reducing the
risk of such orders missing the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \14\
because the foregoing proposed rule: (1) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission notice of its intent
to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
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. NYSE has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The NYSE has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the proposed rule change restores the ability of market
participants to submit, and Floor brokers to receive, orders containing
non-regular way settlement instructions. Accordingly, the proposed rule
change does not raise any novel or troubling issues. For this reason,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ 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. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-59. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2009-59 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16313 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P