" Walke, John" < jwalke@ nrdc. org> 07/ 18/ 2005 11: 08 PM To Stephen Johnson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Howard Hoffman/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Maxwell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Group A AND R DOCKET@ EPA, Maryjo Krolewski/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Carol Holmes/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Cc " Walke, John" < jwalke@ nrdc. org>, " Devine, Jon" < jdevine@ nrdc. org>, aweeks@ catf. us Subject NRDC et al petition for reconsideration Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0056.

Attached is a petition for reconsideration of EPA's final rule entitled " Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units," and two accompanying spreadsheets referenced in this petition.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

John Walke NRDC ( 202) 289 2406 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of the Final Rule: ) ) Standards of Performance for New and ) OAR 2002 0056 Existing Stationary Sources: Electric ) Utility Steam Generating Units ) ____________________________________)

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pursuant to Section 307( d)( 7)( B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7607( d)( 7)( B),

the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Clean Air Task Force, the Ohio Environmental Council, the United States Public Interest Research Group, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine hereby petition the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (" the Administrator" or " EPA") to reconsider the final rule captioned above and published at 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 28700 ( May 18, 2005)

( hereinafter " Final Rule"). The Final Rule adopts unlawful standards of performance for new and existing electric utility steam generating units under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (" CAA" or " Act").

As discussed in detail below, EPA has included in the Final Rule a number of issues on which it was impracticable to raise objections during the period provided for public comment. These issues are also centrally relevant to the rulemaking action because they demonstrate that the agency's approaches violate the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA must " convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed." 42 U. S. C. § 7607( d)( 7)( B). 3 ISSUES FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. The Final Rule Reflects Unlawful Standards of Performance Under Section 111 EPA's Final Rule relies upon purported authority in sections 111( a) and 111( d)( 1)

to:

promulgate a `` standard of performance'' that States must, through a SIP like system, apply to existing sources. A `` standard of performance'' is defined as a rule that reflects emission limits to the degree achievable through `` the best system of emission reduction'' that EPA `` determines has been adequately demonstrated,'' considering costs and other factors.

70 Fed. Reg. at 28616/ 3. Pointing to this standard, EPA goes on to note that it has:

determined that a cap and trade program based on control technology available in the relevant timeframe is the best system for reducing Hg emissions from existing coal fired Utility Units.

Id. at 28617/ 2.

In devising the geographic scope for this trading program, and the state and Indian country emissions budgets, EPA developed a statewide emissions budget for mercury for each state   and each coal fired Utility Unit located in Indian country   " by totaling unitlevel emissions reductions requirements for coal fired electricity generating devices." Id.

at 28621. At the same time, EPA noted that " States have the flexibility to meet these State budgets by participating in a trading program or establishing another methodology for Hg emissions reductions from coal fired electric generating units ." Id.

We are attaching to these reconsideration comments two spreadsheets, developed from data in EPA's rulemaking docket, summarizing: ( 1) unit level emission " reduction"

requirements for coal fired electric generating units in phase I and phase II of the Final Rule; and ( 2) the statewide emissions budgets for mercury. The spreadsheets present information about the mercury emissions levels on a unit by unit and state by state basis, 4 respectively, under the phase I cap of 38 tons and the phase II cap of 15 tons. Each spreadsheet contains comparable emissions data on a unit and state specific basis from EPA's 1999 mercury emissions data. The spreadsheets then compare the emissions reductions   or in many cases increases   that would occur in phase I and phase II as compared to 1999 emissions data on a percentage basis, under the allocations described by EPA in its Final Rule. Finally, the spreadsheets employ yellow highlighting to make clear where the phase I and phase II allocations in the Final Rule allow emissions increases   at individual units or even on a statewide basis   as compared to mercury emissions levels in 1999.1 The information presented in these spreadsheets makes clear that the Final Rule is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise an abuse of the agency's discretion in purporting to represent " the best system of emission reduction" determined to have been adequately demonstrated under sections 111( a) and 111( d). As demonstrated in the attached spreadsheets, EPA is unlawfully and arbitrarily contending that Congress intended this " best system of emission reduction" to be satisfied by a Final Rule in which:

  19 states would experience mercury pollution increases above recent actual levels in phase I, between now and 2017;   5 states would still be allowed mercury pollution increases above recent actual levels in phase II, in 2018 and beyond ( indeed, forever, as far as one can tell under the Final Rule);   Of the 19 states experiencing higher mercury budgets in phase I, the percentage increases above 1999 levels include increases of 73% ( Nevada), 176.6% ( Colorado), 208.7% ( Hawaii), 240.9% ( New Hampshire), and 840.9% ( California);   Several states in phase II are still allowed substantial increases above 1999 levels: e. g., New Hampshire ( 35.3%) and California ( 267.2%).

1 The state by state chart does not account for the fact that some units are located in Indian Country. For example, although there are units physically located in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico that receive separate allocations apart from those states, the 1999 emission data we have reviewed does not appear to distinguish between emissions from sources in a state and from sources in Indian Country within that state. 5   425 units can increase mercury emissions above recent actual levels in phase I, between now and 2017;   129 units still would be allowed mercury pollution increases above recent actual levels in phase II, in 2018 and beyond ( indeed, forever, as far as one can tell under the Final Rule);   Of the 425 unit allowed higher mercury levels in phase I, the percentage increases above 1999 levels include increases of 100%, 1,000%, 5,000% and even in excess of 10,000%; and   Of the 129 units allowed higher mercury levels in phase II, most of these units are still allowed increases of more than 100%, with some ranging in excess of 5,000% increases.

The Phase I budgets and allocations appeared for the first time in the Final Rule, making it impracticable to raise objections during the period provided for public comment.

Subsection 307( d)( 3)( C) of the Act requires EPA to accompany any proposed rule with " the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying [ it]," 42 U. S. C. § 7607( d)( 3)( C). The grounds for Petitioners' objections to the Final Rule thus " arose after the period for public comment" and are appropriately raised in this petition. See id. § 7607( d)( 7)( B). Each of the objections set forth herein is " of central relevance to the outcome of the rule," id., because each demonstrates that the rule contravenes the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious. Id. § 7607( d)( 9)( A).

The Final Rule does not, and indeed cannot, explain or justify why these sweeping statewide and unit specific emissions increases represent the " best system of emission reduction" as required by section 111. Nor does the Final Rule explain why states or units experiencing paltry decreases in phase I or phase II are being required to meet the " best system of emission reduction" either. Indeed, EPA's description of the statewide mercury emissions budgets and the unit by unit allocations amounts to a basic,

gross misrepresentation of these things, since the agency characterizes the former as " budget[ s] for reductions from coal fired Utility Units" and the latter as " unit level 6 emissions reduction requirements for coal fired electricity generating devices." 70 Fed.

Reg. 28621 ( emphases added). As shown in the attached spreadsheets and discussed above, these things are the very opposite of " reductions" in many instances. Indeed, in reading the entire preamble to the Final Rule, there is no acknowledgment by EPA that many statewide emissions budgets reflect increases in phase I and phase II, or that hundreds of units are assumed to have emissions increases in arriving at these budgets.

Accordingly, EPA skirts entirely the question of how this situation reflects the " best system of emission reduction" under section 111.2 EPA identifies no instance in which a previous section 111 rule and its " best system of emission reduction" standard were satisfied by standards allowing emissions increases from any source, much less increases from many sources or across many states.

Indeed, inter source and inter state trading are prohibited under section 111, as detailed further in comments submitted to the agency on its proposal, and EPA is flatly incorrect in claiming that the Final Rule is " wholly consistent with" a single earlier instance of trading in an emissions guideline under section 111 ( an authorization of trading, we note,

that was not subjected to judicial review). See 70 Fed. Reg. at 28617/ 1. EPA's own description of that NOx trading program indicates that it was implemented " by individual States," id., which is to say within a single state pursuant to individual state plans, and did not involve inter state trading as the Final Rule purports to allow. Even so, EPA may not authorize that which is contrary to the statute.

2 Indeed, the most that EPA manages is to argue that these emissions budgets provide " an efficient method for achieving necessary reductions in Hg emissions ( as described in earlier sections of this preamble), while providing substantial flexibility in implementing the program." 70 Fed. Reg. at 28621/ 2 ( emphasis added). 7 The unlawfulness and arbitrariness of EPA's trading scheme  and its allowance for unit specific and state specific mercury emissions increases   is further revealed by the State plan specific nature of section 111( d)' s standards of performance for existing sources. Under section 111( d)( 1), each State is to submit to the Administrator a plan establishing standards of performance for existing sources that meet section 111( a)( 1)' s definition. The Final Rule notes that while states are not required to adopt and implement the proposed emissions trading rule, states are required to be in compliance with their statewide mercury emission budget. And equally important, EPA will approve plans that are in compliance with those budgets. Accordingly, any individual State plan that is submitted in compliance with budgets allowing mercury increases, or paltry decreases, in phases I and II will be deemed to be the State plan specific " best system of emission reduction" required by sections 111( a)( 1) and 111( d).

Yet there is nothing in section 111 allowing the overall emissions reductions achieved by states collectively under phases I and II to meet the standard for the " best system of emission reduction" required of each individual State plan, especially where multiple state plans may be submitted to conform to statewide budgets that are substantially higher than current in state emissions from the utility sector. In other words,

the Final Rule allows the legal obligation for each individual State plan to meet section 111( a)( 1) and 111( d)' s standard of performance obligation to be achieved by the unlawful totaling of state plans collectively, whereby the reductions required from some state plan submissions will counterbalance the increases allowed in other state plans. This is flatly contrary to the plain language of section 111. 8 This unlawfulness is compounded by the fact, which EPA is forced to acknowledge, that not all states will participate in the trading program and, indeed, that EPA cannot require that states do so. These basic facts underscore the fundamental unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the standards of performance for existing sources in the Final Rule. By refusing to require mercury reductions from many units and statewide reductions from many states, in favor of the hope that universal trading participation might yield emissions reductions even in those states with phase I and phase II emissions budgets that are higher than recent actual emissions levels, the Final Rule makes a mockery of the statutory command that each State submit plans meeting section 111' s " best system of emission reduction" standard, the Final Rule fails to protect the public in those states ( and in downwind states), and the Final Rule entirely subverts the Congressional intent behind section 111( d).

Moreover, even if there were universal trading participation by the states in submitting state plans, the Final Rule fails to explain to the citizens of Colorado, for example, that the " best system of emission reduction" for their own good is to suffer from 176% higher levels of mercury emissions from now through 2017 and 9% higher mercury levels from 2018 and beyond. 3 Or that New Hampshire residents should be satisfied with 241% higher mercury pollution levels between now and 2017, and 35%

higher levels in 2018 and later. There is nothing in the statute or legislative history 3 It is not material to these objections to the Final Rule whether each of the numbers in the attached spreadsheets is precise. While EPA's own 1999 mercury emissions data are the best and most comprehensive data available ( to us and the agency) reflecting today's mercury emissions from electric generation units, the unit specific and state specific numbers reflected in the two spreadsheets could be higher or lower than actual emissions today   due, for example, to new unit construction, fuel switching, or pollution control device installations that have occurred since 1999. Our objections to the Final Rule catalogued in these reconsideration comments are rooted in the sheer number and magnitude of emissions increases reflected in the Final Rule's budgets, and possible marginal errors in the spreadsheets do not materially affect those considerations. 9 indicating Congressional intent that section 111' s " best system of emission reduction"

should yield those outcomes for the residents of those states. EPA has never before subjected citizens of different states to such disparate and unlawful levels of protection under section 111, in part because EPA has never before interpreted section 111 to authorize the Final Rule's form of trading ( due to its unlawfulness), in part because such an approach is an inequitable and indefensible policy choice.

Finally, EPA's rule unintentionally reveals an internally arbitrary and unlawful consequence of this approach to section 111' s " best system of emission reduction." The Final Rule notes that:

As required by CAA section 111( a)( 1), EPA has considered the cost of achieving the reductions in Hg emissions mandated by the section 111( d) requirements for existing Utility Units, the non air quality health and environmental impacts arising from the implementation of those requirements and the energy requirements associated with those requirements and determined that they are all reasonable.

70 Fed. Reg. at 28624/ 1. Thus, the Final Rule is simultaneously claiming that state mercury emissions budgets that allow statewide emissions to triple ( California, Hawaii,

New Hampshire, Utah) reasonably satisfy the statutory criteria in section 111, as do state mercury emissions budgets that require 64% lower mercury emissions in phase I ( Pennsylvania) or 89% lower mercury emissions under the phase II cap ( New Mexico).

In EPA's view, any of those outcomes represents a reasonable satisfaction of the obligation for each state to submit plans meeting the " best system of emission reduction"

for each state. This is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise an abuse of EPA's discretion. The statutory criteria in section 111( a)( 1) lose all meaning if the state mercury budgets adopted by EPA, and the outcomes detailed in the attached spreadsheets,

reasonably satisfy those criteria. Finally, EPA's acknowledgment that the more stringent 10 and protective state budgets satisfy the statutory criteria ( e. g., as with Pennsylvania and New Mexico, noted above) renders unlawful and arbitrary the Final Rule's failure to require greater and timelier mercury emissions reductions in other states with weaker ( or no) control obligations.

For all the foregoing reasons, EPA must reconsider its Final Rule.

2. It is Unlawful to Apply Section 111( d) to Hazardous Air Pollutants Listed Pursuant to Section 112 of the Act, and EPA Improperly Amended Existing Regulations to Accomplish this Unlawful Application Without Prior Notice and Opportunity for Comment.

EPA must also reconsider its decision to amend its regulations implementing section 111( d) of the Act without notice and opportunity for comment. Before the final rule, EPA explained that section 111( d) only applied to " designated pollutants," and that HAPs listed pursuant to section 112 could not be considered " designated pollutants." In particular, 40 C. F. R. § 60.21( a) previously defined " designated pollutant" to mean " any air pollutant, emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources but for which air quality criteria have not been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108( a) or section 112( b)( 1)( A) of the Act." In turn, section 112( b)( 1)( A) of the Act was, before the 1990 Amendments, the provision under which hazardous air pollutants were listed for regulation; 4 today, the list of pollutants to be regulated is contained in section 112( b)( 1). Based on this statutory and regulatory structure, EPA has explained that section 111( d) is unavailable for listed HAPs:

Section 111( d) of the CAA allows EPA to approve state plans to regulate emissions from existing sources of " designated pollutants," i. e., pollutants not listed as criteria pollutants under CAA section 108( a) nor as hazardous air 4 42 U. S. C. § 7412( b)( 1)( A) ( 1990) (" The Administrator shall, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, publish ( and shall from time to time thereafter revise) a list which includes each hazardous air pollutant for which he intends to establish an emission standard under this section."). 11 pollutants (" HAPs") under section 112( b)( 1), but to which a standard of performance for new sources applies under section 111.5 EPA has explained the scope of section 111( d) similarly on numerous occasions. 6 In comments submitted to the rulemaking docket, NRDC pointed out that EPA's prior understanding of the CAA and the agency's regulations conflicted with its desire   in the present rulemaking   to regulate power plants' mercury emissions under the authority of section 111( d). 7 EPA's response was to change its regulations in the final rule without proposing such amendments. Specifically, EPA stated:

We recognize that we may have made statements concerning section 111( d), since the 1990 Amendments, but those statements did not recognize or account for the two different amendments to section 111( d), as enacted in 1990. We are also amending 40 CFR 60.21, as part of the final CAMR. That regulation, which was promulgated in 1975, interprets the 1970 CAA and defines a " designated pollutant" for purposes of section 111( d), as excluding any pollutant that is listed on the section 112( b)( 1)( A) list. There is no section 112( b)( 1)( A) in the current act, as amended in 1990. We are therefore revising 40 CFR 60.21 because it does not reflect the current language of section 111( d), as amended in 1990.8 EPA's final cap and trade rule codifies this decision by changing the definition of " designated pollutant" to include any pollutant " that is on the section 112( b)( 1) list and is emitted from a facility that is not part of a source category regulated under section 112." 9 Because EPA finalized this change to its governing regulations without notice and opportunity to comment, and because making the change allows EPA to accomplish its pollution trading scheme, this change is one upon which it was impracticable to raise an objection during the public comment period, and is of central relevance to the rulemaking.

5 70 Fed. Reg. 9872, 9873 ( Mar. 1, 2005) 6 See, e. g., 66 Fed. Reg. 67,096 ( Dec. 28, 2001); 66 Fed. Reg. 48,355 ( Sept. 20, 2001); 65 Fed. Reg. 16,323 24 ( Mar. 28, 2000). 7 Email from Jon Devine, NRDC, to EPA Air Docket et al., Docket OAR 2002 0056, Item 5762 ( Mar. 2, 2005). 8 70 Fed. Reg. 15,994, 16,032 n. 63 ( Mar. 29, 2005); see also 70 Fed. Reg. 12,591, 12,592 ( Mar. 15, 2005) (" correcting" March 1, 2005 notice and stating that "[ t] his summary of CAA section 111( d)( 1) is inaccurate and incomplete."). 9 70 Fed. Reg. at 28,649 ( to be codified at 40 C. F. R. § 60.21( a)). 12 Accordingly, EPA must " convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed." 10 Moreover, because it is unlawful to regulate listed HAPs under section 111( d), as we have explained in our petition for reconsideration of EPA's action reversing its December 2000 regulatory determination, 11 EPA must revoke these regulatory changes upon reconsideration.

3. The Actual Language of the Final Rule Unlawfully Fails to Require Mercury Emissions Reductions From Electrical Generating Units.

Despite EPA's claims in the preamble to the Final Rule that states may achieve the required mercury emissions reductions from coal fired electric generating units through means other than the agency's model trading rule, and that states must meet the specified budgets for reductions from coal fired utility units, 70 Fed. Reg. at 28621, the actual rule language for the Final Rule shockingly fails to impose a legal obligation upon states to meet their annual mercury budgets through mercury reductions from existing electrical generating units. While this may be due to poor drafting on the agency's part, it nonetheless undermines altogether the basis for EPA's Final Rule   and the agency's separate claim that it need not develop a section 112( d) standard for power plants.

Moreover, since EPA never provided notice and opportunity for comment concerning this basic omission in the rule language itself, EPA must grant reconsideration of the Final Rule.

40 CFR § 60.24( h) contains provisions governing emissions standards and compliance schedules in state plans required to be submitted to the Administrator. 70 Fed. Reg. at 28649 52. While section 60.24( h)( 3) mentions annual electrical generating 10 42 U. S. C. § 7607( d)( 7)( B). 11 NRDC et al., Petition for Reconsideration, OAR 2002 0056, at 24 32 ( May 31, 2005). 13 unit ( EGU) mercury budgets, and contains a table indicating the two phase amounts in tons for each state under those budgets, there is no clear, specific and enforceable legal obligation that states achieve those mercury budgets solely as a result of emissions reductions from EGUs. The title to the table in section 60.24( h)( 3) is not sufficient to accomplish that result  presumably intended by EPA  as a legal matter. Indeed, it is noteworthy that in all the provisions of section 60.24( h) there is no direct legal requirement for existing EGUs to achieve any mercury reductions. By contrast, all EGUs must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of part 75 with regard to mercury mass emissions. See 40 CFR § 60.24( h)( 4). And new EGUs are mentioned in the context of notification requirements to the Administrator concerning mercury allocations. Id. § 60.24( h)( 6)( ii)( C) & ( D). These provisions, however, make it all the more remarkable that the Final Rule is so poorly drafted in failing to impose obligations upon existing EGUs in each state to contribute any mercury reductions to each state's annual mercury budget. EPA must reconsider the Final Rule in order to correct this deficiency.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, EPA must promptly grant reconsideration of its final standards of performance for new and existing electric utility steam generating units.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________ Jon P. Devine, Jr. 14 John D. Walke Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 ( 202) 289 6868 Counsel for Petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council _____________________ Ann Brewster Weeks Clean Air Task Force 18 Tremont Street, Suite 530 Boston, MA 02108 ( 617) 624 0234 Counsel for Petitioners Clean Air Task Force, Ohio Environmental Council, United States Public Interest Research Group, and Natural Resources Council of Maine July 18, 2005


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8867-8868]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03452]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9923-21-OA]

Notification of a Face-to-Face Meeting and a Teleconference of
the Science Advisory Board Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public face-to-face
meeting of the SAB Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel to review EPA's
Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources
(November 2014). The SAB Staff Office also announces a public
teleconference of the SAB Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel to review its
draft report on EPA's document.

DATES: The public face-to-face meeting will be held on March 25, 2015,
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) and March 26, 2015 from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The teleconference will be held on
May 29, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The face-to-face meeting will take place at the George
Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health,
Convening Center A and B, 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20052. The teleconference will be held by telephone only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding the public meeting or public
teleconference may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-
2073 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found at the EPA SAB
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA)
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to

provide independent scientific and technical peer review, advice,
consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the
technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the
SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. Pursuant to FACA
and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Biogenic Carbon
Emissions Panel will hold a public meeting to review EPA's Framework
for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources (November
2014) and a public teleconference to review its draft report on EPA's
document. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all
appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
    In 2011, EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) in EPA's Office
of Air and Radiation requested SAB review of EPA's first draft
accounting framework. A final report from the Science Advisory Board
was transmitted to the EPA Administrator on September 28, 2012 and may
be found posted at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
c91996cd39a82f648525742400690127/57B7A4F1987D7F7385257A87007977F6/
$File/EPA-SAB-12-011-unsigned.pdf. The upcoming face-to-face meeting on
March 25 and 26, 2015 and teleconference on May 29, 2015 are planned
for a review of EPA's revised framework (November 2014) cited above.
Background on the current advisory activity can be found on the SAB Web
site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Biogenic%20CO2%20Framework?OpenDocument.
    Availability of the meeting materials: Agendas will be posted on
the SAB Web site prior to the March 25 and 26, 2015 face-to-face
meeting and the May 29, 2015 teleconference. To locate these materials,
go to http://epa.gov/sab">epa.gov/sab and click on the calendar and then the respective
meeting dates. EPA's review document, charge to the Panel and other
background materials are also available at the URL above. For questions
concerning EPA's Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from
Stationary Sources (November 2014), please contact Sara Ohrel, Climate
Change Division, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this
advisory activity, including the charge to the panel and the EPA review
documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to
consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB
will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide
specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB
panel to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the
technical information.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation will be limited to five minutes per speaker for the
face-to-face meeting and three minutes per speaker for the
teleconference. Interested parties should contact Dr. Holly Stallworth,
DFO, in writing (preferably via email), at the contact information
noted above, by March 16, 2015 to be placed on the list of public
speakers for the face-to-face meeting and by May 21, 2015 to be placed
on the list of speakers for the teleconference.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the
SAB Staff Office by March 16, 2015 to be considered for the face-to-
face meeting and by May 21, 2015 to be considered for the
teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO,
preferably in electronic format via email. It is the SAB Staff Office
general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the
advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide
an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does
not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the
public should be aware that their personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site.
Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of
the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: The public can view the March 25 and 26, 2015
meeting via a non-interactive webcast that will be broadcast on the
Internet. The connection information to view the webcast will be
provided on the meeting Web page at the time of the meeting. The
meeting Web page may be found by going to http://epa.gov/sab and
clicking on the calendar then the meeting date. For information on
access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact
Dr. Stallworth at the phone number or email address noted above,
preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-03452 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95982-95987]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31646]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179; FRL-9957-70-OAR]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 2014 and Subsequent Model Year Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the
California Air Resources Board's (``CARB's'') request for a waiver of
Clean Air Act preemption for its greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emission
regulation for the new 2014 and subsequent model year on-road medium-
and heavy-duty engines and vehicles (``California Phase 1 GHG
Regulation'') adopted in 2011. This regulation establishes requirements
applicable to new motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
exceeding 8,500 pounds and engines that power such motor vehicles,
except for medium-duty passenger vehicles that are subject to
California's Low Emission Vehicle Program. This regulation generally
aligns California's GHG emission standards and test procedures with the
federal GHG emission standards and test procedures that EPA

adopted in 2011. A deemed-to-comply provision is included in CARB's
regulation whereby manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with
California's Phase 1 GHG Regulation by complying with EPA's Phase 1
regulation. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean
Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'').

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by February 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government
working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The email address for the Air and Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the fax
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through the federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are
links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited
in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    California's Phase 1 GHG Regulation complements CARB's existing
Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation that was initially adopted in December
2008 and subsequently amended in 2010 and 2012. EPA granted California
a waiver for the Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation in 2014.\1\ The
Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation requires new 2011 and subsequent model
year (``MY'') sleeper-cab tractors that haul 53-foot or longer box-type
trailers on California highways, and 53-foot and longer box-type
trailers operating on California highways to be equipped with U.S. EPA
SmartWay approved aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling resistance
tires. California's Phase 1 GHG Regulation establishes emission
standards for tractors that are also subject to the requirements of
CARB's Tractor-Trailer GHG regulation. CARB amended the Tractor-Trailer
GHG regulation in conjunction with its adoption of the Phase 1 GHG
Regulation to make California's GHG requirements for new medium- and
heavy-duty engines and vehicles consistent with corresponding
requirements of EPA's Phase 1 GHG regulation.\2\ The California Phase 1
GHG Regulation establishes GHG emission standards and associated test
procedures for new 2014 and subsequent MY diesel-fueled medium- and
heavy-duty engines and for new 2016 and subsequent MY gasoline-fueled
medium- and heavy-duty engines used in combination tractors and
vocational vehicles that are identical to the corresponding GHG
emission standards and associated test procedures for diesel and
gasoline-fueled heavy-duty engines in EPA's Phase 1 GHG regulation. The
California Phase 1 GHG Regulation also contains ``deemed to comply''
provisions that allow engine manufacturers to demonstrate that 2014
through 2022 model year medium- and heavy-duty engines comply with
California's GHG emission standards by showing compliance with EPA's
Phase 1 regulation, i.e., submitting to CARB the engine family's
Certificate of Conformity issued by EPA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 46256 (August 7, 2014).
    \2\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
    \3\ See ``California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel-Engines
and Vehicles'', Part 1036, Subpart B, section 1036.108, and
``California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004
and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engines and Vehicles'',
Part 1036, Subpart B, section 1036.108. See also ``California
Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
2014 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Vehicles'', Part 1037, Subpart
B, section 1037.101(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated January 29, 2016,\4\ CARB submitted to EPA a
request for a waiver of the preemption found at section 209(a) of Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), for the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation.
CARB's submission provides analysis and evidence to support its finding
that the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation satisfies the CAA section
209(b) criteria and that a waiver of preemption should be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CARB, ``In the Matter of California's Request for Waiver
Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(b) for California's Greenhouse
Gas Regulation for Medium- and heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,''
January 29, 2016 (``California Waiver Request Support Document'')
See www.regulations.gov Web site, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0179-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Principles Governing This Review

A. Scope of Review

    Section 209(a) of the CAA provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this
part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA Sec.  209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a).

    Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an
opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the
prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards
(other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30,
1966, if the state determines that its state standards will be, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards.\6\ However, no such waiver shall be
granted if the Administrator finds that: (A) The protectiveness
determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious; (B) the state
does not need such state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or (C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA Sec.  209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). California is the
only state that meets section 209(b)(1)'s requirement for obtaining
a waiver. See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \7\ CAA Sec.  209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1).

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

    Key principles governing this review are that EPA should limit its
inquiry to the specific findings identified in section 209(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, and that EPA will give substantial deference to the
policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In
previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended the
Agency's review of California's decision-making to be narrow. EPA has
rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
denying a waiver:

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied
unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly
be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is
likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air
quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably
unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my
decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is
consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further
reduction in air pollution in California.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State
Standards,'' 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more
stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the
1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California
must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\9\ ``[T]he
statute does not provide for any probing substantive review of the
California standards by federal officials.'' Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 606
F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Thus, EPA's consideration of all the
evidence submitted concerning a waiver decision is circumscribed by its
relevance to those questions that may be considered under section
209(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d
1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (``MEMA I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in
MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of
showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have
been met:

    [T]he language of the statute and its legislative history
indicate that California's regulations, and California's
determinations that they must comply with the statute, when
presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver
requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever
attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings
at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver
request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the
waiver request should be denied.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MEMA I, note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a
reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the
waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \11\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 1126.
    \12\ Id. at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained
that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

[ . . . ]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of
materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence
against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties
favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual
circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the
waiver.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 1122.

In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under
section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an
``accompanying enforcement procedure.'' Those findings involve: (1)
Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior
protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2)
whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The
principles set forth by the court are similarly applicable to an EPA
review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The
court instructed that ``the standard of proof must take account of the
nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it
therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this
standard operates in every waiver decision.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the
Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be ``clear
and compelling evidence'' to show that proposed enforcement procedures
undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.\15\ The court
noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional
intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in
setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and
welfare.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures,
there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis
would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past
waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two
areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the
existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the
standards are technologically feasible--Congress intended that the
standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.''
\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., ``California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,'' 40 FR 23102 (May
28, 1975), at 23103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of
Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed
criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess
state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver
decision:

    It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a
California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to
adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. . . .
Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits
from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any
regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I
believe I am required to give very substantial deference to
California's judgments on this score.\18\

    \18\ 40 FR 23102, 23103-04 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of
the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional
intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on
``ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy'' to
California's judgment.\19\ This interpretation is supported by relevant
discussion in the House Committee

Report for the 1977 amendments to the CAA. Congress had the opportunity
through the 1977 amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver
provision, but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to
adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report
explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the
preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying
intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest
possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health
of its citizens and the public welfare.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 (January 13,
1993).
    \20\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's
Request

    On August 9, 2016, EPA published a notice of opportunity for public
hearing and comment on California's waiver request. In that notice, EPA
requested comments on CARB's request for a waiver for the California
Phase 1 GHG Regulation under the following three criteria: Whether (a)
California's determination that its motor vehicle emissions standards
are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious,
(b) California needs such State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA received no comments and no requests for a public hearing.
Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.

III. Discussion

A. Whether California's Protectiveness Determination Was Arbitrary and
Capricious

    As stated in the background, section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act sets
forth the first of the three criteria governing a new waiver request--
whether California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination
that its motor vehicle emissions standards will be, in the aggregate,
at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
federal standards. Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to deny
a waiver if the Administrator finds that California's protectiveness
determination was arbitrary and capricious. However, a finding that
California's determination was arbitrary and capricious must be based
upon clear and convincing evidence that California's finding was
unreasonable.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122, 1124 (``Once California has come
forward with a finding that the procedures it seeks to adopt will
not undermine the protectiveness of its standards, parties opposing
the waiver request must show that this finding is unreasonable.'');
see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121 (Jan. 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB did make a protectiveness determination in adopting the
California Phase 1 GHG Regulation, and found that the California Phase
1 GHG Regulation would not cause California motor vehicle emissions
standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of the public health
and welfare than applicable federal standards.\22\ CARB notes that its
rulemaking action established California GHG emission standards for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that are identical to the corresponding
GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles in EPA's
Phase 1 GHG regulation, and the regulation further contains ``deemed to
comply'' provisions that allow manufacturers to demonstrate 2014
through 2022 model year medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles
comply with California GHG emission standards by providing CARB the
same emissions data and related information required to certify the
engine or vehicle to EPA's Phase 1 GHG regulations' requirements.\23\
In addition, CARB notes that minor differences remain between the EPA
and CARB programs that provide further assurances that California's
program is, in the aggregate, at least as protective as the federal
program as applied to the categories of affected medium- and heavy-duty
engines and vehicles.\24\ EPA received no comments and EPA is not
otherwise aware of evidence suggesting that CARB's protectiveness
determination was unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ California Waiver Request Support Document at 30-31, and
Attachment 11 (CARB Resolution 13-50, dated December 12, 2013, at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179-0012). The CARB Board expressly declared in
Resolution 13-50 that ``BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby
determines that the regulations adopted herein will not cause
California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be
less protective of the public health and welfare than applicable
federal standards.
    \23\ Id. ``Phase 1 Certified Tractor'' means a tractor that has
been certified in accordance with either the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, as adopted by the US EPA (76 FR
57106 (September 15, 2011)); or the Greenhouse Gas Emission
Requirements for New 2014 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
as adopted by the California Air Resources Board, sections 95660 to
95664, Subarticle 12, title 17, California Code of Regulations
95302.
    \24\ Id. For example, CARB explains that California's Phase 1
GHG Regulation does not fully incorporate the federal definition of
``urban bus'' in order to preserve California's existing requirement
that urban buses be powered by heavy heavy-duty diesel engines (HHD)
for which an EPA waiver has already been granted (78 FR 44112 (July
23, 2013), and that the useful life period for HHD diesel engines
exceeds the federal useful life period for light heavy-duty and
medium heavy-duty diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it is clear that California's standards are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards, and that CARB's deemed to comply provision together with the
unique aspects of the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation make
California's standards even more protective, EPA finds that
California's protectiveness determination is not arbitrary and
capricious.

B. Whether the Standards Are Necessary To Meet Compelling and
Extraordinary Conditions

    Section 209(b)(1)(B) instructs that EPA cannot grant a waiver if
the Agency finds that California ``does not need such State standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'' EPA's inquiry under
this second criterion has traditionally been to determine whether
California needs its own motor vehicle emission control program (i.e.
set of standards) to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and
not whether the specific standards (the California Phase 1 GHG
Regulation) that are the subject of the waiver request are necessary to
meet such conditions.\25\ In recent waiver actions, EPA again examined
the language of section 209(b)(1)(B) and reiterated this longstanding
traditional interpretation as the appropriate approach for analyzing
the need for ``such State standards'' to meet ``compelling and
extraordinary conditions.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act
Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles,'' 74 FR
32744 (July 8, 2009), at 32761; see also ``California State Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption
Notice of Decision,'' 49 FR 18887 (May 3, 1984), at 18889-18890.
    \26\ See 78 FR 2112, at 2125-26 (Jan. 9, 2013) (``EPA does not
look at whether the specific standards at issue are needed to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions related to that air
pollutant.''; see also EPA's July 9, 2009 GHG Waiver Decision
wherein EPA rejected the suggested interpretation of section
209(b)(1)(B) as requiring a review of the specific need for
California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards as
opposed to the traditional interpretation (need for the motor
vehicle emission program as a whole) applied to local or regional
air pollution problems. See also 79 FR 46256, 46261 (August 7,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation, CARB
determined in Resolution 13-50 that California continues to need its
own motor vehicle program to meet serious

ongoing air pollution problems.\27\ CARB asserted that ``The
geographical and climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in
vehicle population and use that moved Congress to authorize California
to establish vehicle standards in 1967 still exist today. EPA has long
confirmed CARB's judgment, on behalf of the State of California, on
this matter.'' \28\ In enacting the California Global Warming Solutions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act of 2006, the Legislature found and declared that:

    Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-
being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of
California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include
the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality
and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in
sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal
businesses and residences, damage to the marine ecosystems and the
natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious
diseases, asthma, and other health-related problems.\29\

    \27\ California Waiver Request Support Document, at 31,
referencing Resolution 13-50, dated December 12, 2013 (see EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0179-0012). Resolution 13-50 also states ``WHEREAS, heavy-
duty trucks, buses, and motor homes emitted 23 percent of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from on-road vehicles and 8 percent of GHG
emissions from all sources in California in 2010. Resolution 13-50
also states ``WHEREAS, in recognition of the devastating impacts of
climate change emissions on California, Governor Schwarzenegger, in
June 2005, enacted Executive Order S-3-05 which established the
following GHG emission targets: By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to
2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by
2050, reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels. In
addition, the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins continue
to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation, and many
areas in California continue to be in nonattainment for the national
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone (81
FR 78149, 78153, November 7, 2016). To address this issue, for
example, California's heavy-duty program also includes an optional
low NOX provision, and CARB states ``Because the proposed
regulation for Optional Low NOX emissions standards is
optional, the emission benefits from that proposal will depend on
the level of participation by engine manufacturers. Staff estimated
NOX emission benefits for two different scenarios based
on low and high participation rates from manufacturers and estimated
NOX emission benefits of 0.6 to 1.2 tons per day (TPD)
statewide in 2020, and 3.3 to 6.9 TPD in 2035.'' CARB Initial
Statement of Reasons, December 12, 2013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0179-0003.
    \28\ California Waiver Request Support Document, at 33
(referencing 70 FR 50322, 50323 (August 26, 2005); 74 FR 32744,
32762-763 (July 9, 2009); 79 FR 46256, 46262 (August 7, 2014).
    \29\ Id. at 33. The Global Warming Solutions Act also sets for
the California Legislature's finding and declaration that
``Continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is critical for the
protection of all areas of the state, but especially for the state's
most disadvantaged communities, as those communities are affected
first, and, most frequently, by the adverse impacts of climate
change, including an increased frequency of extreme weather events,
such as drought, heat, and flooding. The state's most disadvantaged
communities also are disproportionately impacted by the deleterious
effects of climate change on public health.'' In addition, on April
29, 2015, California Governor Edmund Brown issued Executive Order B-
30-15 which states in part ``WHEREAS climate change poses an ever-
growing threat to the well-being, public health, natural resources,
economy, and the environment of California, including loss of
snowpack, drought, sea level rise, more frequent and intense
wildfires, heat waves, more severe smog, and harm to natural and
working lands, and these effects are already being felt in the
state.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There has been no evidence submitted to indicate that California's
compelling and extraordinary conditions do not continue to exist.
California, particularly in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air
basins, continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the
nation, and many areas in California continue to be in non-attainment
with national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter
and ozone.\30\ As California has previously stated, ``nothing in
[California's unique geographic and climatic] conditions has changed to
warrant a change in this determination.'' \31\ EPA agrees that the
fundamental conditions that cause California's serious air pollution
problems continue to exist.\32\ Therefore, EPA affirms California's
need for its new motor vehicle emissions program as a whole, to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions. In addition, EPA notes the
continued adverse impacts of California's changing climate (e.g. the
increase in wildfires, increased threats to coastal developments and
ecosystems, etc.).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 74 FR 32744, 32762-63 (July 8, 2009).
    \31\ 74 FR 32744, 32762 (July 8, 2009); 76 FR 77515, 77518
(December 13, 2011).
    \32\ In addition to the variety of human health impacts
associated with high air temperatures (e.g., heat stroke and
dehydration, and effects on people's cardiovascular, respiratory,
and nervous systems), warming can also increase the formation of
ground-level ozone, a component of smog that can contribute to
respiratory problems. See ``What Climate Change Means for
California,'' August 2016, EPA 430-F-16-007 at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-ca.pdf.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the record before us, including EPA's prior waiver
decisions, EPA is unable to identify any change in circumstances or
evidence to suggest that the conditions that Congress identified as
giving rise to serious air quality problems in California no longer
exist. Therefore, EPA cannot find that California does not need its
state standards, including greenhouse gas emission standards, to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.

C. Consistency With Section 202(a)

    For the third and final criterion, EPA evaluates the program for
consistency with section 202(a) of the CAA. Under section 209(b)(1)(C)
of the CAA, EPA must deny California's waiver request if EPA finds that
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires that
regulations ``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
relevant technology, considering the cost of compliance within that
time.''
    EPA has previously stated that the determination is limited to
whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of
establishing that California's standards are technologically
infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements
inconsistent with the federal test procedure. Infeasibility would be
shown here by demonstrating that there is inadequate lead time to
permit the development of technology necessary to meet the California
Phase 1 GHG Regulation, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that time.\34\ California's accompanying enforcement
procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the
federal and California test procedures conflicted, i.e., if
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal
test requirements with the same test vehicle.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., 38 F.R 30136 (November 1, 1973) and 40 FR 30311
(July 18, 1975).
    \35\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding test procedure conflict, CARB notes that it is not aware
of any instances in which a manufacturer is precluded from conducting
one set of tests on a heavy-duty engine or a heavy-duty vehicle to
determine compliance with both California and federal GHG requirements.
The regulation's ``deemed to comply'' provisions ensure that engine and
vehicle manufacturers can use federal test results to demonstrate
compliance with California's GHG emission standards through the 2022
model year. CARB also notes that no test procedure inconsistencies
exist for those manufactures that elect not to utilize the deemed to
comply provisions, or for 2023 and subsequent model year engines and
vehicles because the California GHG emission standards and associated
test procedures for new medium- and heavy-duty engines and new medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles are identical to corresponding federal GHG
emission standards and test procedures.\36\ For the reasons set forth
above, and because

there is no evidence in the record or other information that EPA is
aware of, EPA cannot find that CARB's Phase I GHG Regulation is
inconsistent with section 202(a) based upon test procedure
inconsistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ California Waiver Support Document at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA did not receive any comments arguing that the
California Phase 1 GHG Regulation was technologically infeasible or
that the cost of compliance would be excessive, such that California's
standards might be inconsistent with section 202(a).\37\ In EPA's
review of CARB's Phase 1 GHG Regulation, we likewise cannot identify
any requirements that appear technologically infeasible or excessively
expensive for manufacturers to implement within the timeframes
provided.\38\ EPA therefore cannot find that the California Phase 1 GHG
Regulation does not provide adequate lead time or is otherwise not
technically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., 78 FR 2134 (Jan. 9, 2013), 47 FR 7306, 7309
(Feb. 18, 1982), 43 FR 25735 (Jun. 17, 1978), and 46 FR 26371, 26373
(May 12, 1981).
    \38\ California Waiver Support Document at 34-43. For example,
both CARB and EPA identified a host of technologies suitable for
compliance with medium- and heavy-duty diesel engine CO2
standards, and for engines in combination tractors and vocational
vehicles. In addition, CARB and EPA identified a variety of
compliance strategy technologies for heavy-duty gasoline engine
CO2 standards. EPA and CARB also identified a number of
commercially available technologies that will enable 2014 through
2018 MY heavy-duty pick-up truck and van (``PUV'') GHG emission
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore cannot find that the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation
that we analyzed under the waiver criteria is inconsistent with section
202(a).
    Having found that the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation satisfies
each of the criteria for a waiver, and having received no evidence to
contradict this finding, we cannot deny a waiver for the regulation.

IV. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(b) waivers to the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. After evaluating CARB's California Phase 1 GHG Regulation
and CARB's submissions for EPA review, EPA is hereby granting a waiver
for the California Phase 1 GHG Regulation.
    This decision will affect persons in California and those
manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with
California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt
California's standards for which a section 209(b) waiver has been
granted under section 177 of the Act if certain criteria are met, this
decision would also affect those states and those persons in such
states. For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a
final action of national applicability, and also a final action of
nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be
filed by February 27, 2017. Judicial review of this final action may
not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to
section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past waiver and authorization decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: December 22, 2016.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016-31646 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35147]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1766-DR]

Indiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the Individual
Assistance program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President
in his declaration of June 8, 2008.

Hancock and Marion Counties for Individual Assistance.

    All counties in the State of Indiana are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-13941 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14024-14025]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0150]

Guidance for Industry on Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling
for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the

availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Hypertension
Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims.'' This
guidance is intended to assist applicants in developing labeling for
outcome claims for drugs that are indicated to treat hypertension. With
few exceptions, current labeling for antihypertensive drugs includes
only the information that these drugs are indicated to reduce blood
pressure; the labeling does not include information on the clinical
benefits related to cardiovascular outcomes expected from such blood
pressure reduction. However, blood pressure control is well established
as beneficial in preventing serious cardiovascular events, and
inadequate treatment of hypertension is acknowledged as a significant
public health problem. The Agency believes that the appropriate use of
these drugs can be encouraged by making the connection between lower
blood pressure and improved cardiovascular outcomes more explicit in
labeling.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devi Kozeli, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4183, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular
Outcome Claims.'' The intent of the guidance is to provide common
labeling for antihypertensive drugs except where differences are
clearly supported by clinical data. With publication of this guidance,
applicants are encouraged to submit labeling supplements containing the
new language.
    A draft guidance of the same title was announced in the Federal
Register on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13546), and Docket No. FDA-2008-D-
0150 was open for comments until May 12, 2008. Comments received from
industry, professional societies, and consumer groups on the draft
guidance were taken into consideration by FDA in finalizing this
guidance. Throughout the guidance, the language has been condensed and
simplified to be more concise and clear. A section has been added to
clarify procedures for obtaining approval of new labeling and its
applicability to advertising. The guidance describes how applicants can
provide clinical evidence for any drugs they perceive to be missing
from Table 1, Approved Drugs for Chronic Treatment of Hypertension, by
submitting the information to the docket number listed in brackets in
the heading of this document. The division will review the information
and revise the guidance to include any new labeling changes supported
by clinical data submitted to the docket.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on labeling for cardiovascular outcome claims
for drugs to treat hypertension. It does not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that 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
collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control number 0910-0670.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http:[sol][sol]www.fda.gov/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-5945 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 15747]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91348; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment, No. 1, To Amend Listing Rules
Applicable to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies Whose Business Plan
Is To Complete One or More Business Combinations

March 18, 2021.
    On September 3, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its listing rules to permit companies
whose business plan is to complete one or more business combinations
(``SPACs'' or ``Acquisition Companies'') 15 calendar days following the
closing of a business combination to demonstrate that the SPAC has
satisfied the applicable round lot shareholder requirement. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 22, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89897 (September 16,
2020), 85 FR 59574 (``Notice''). Comments received on the proposal
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-062/srnasdaq2020062.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On December 16, 2020, the Commission
instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
On February 25, 2021, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which superseded the proposed rule change as
originally filed. Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 16, 2021.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90340, 85 FR 71704
(November 10, 2020). The Commission designated December 21, 2020, as
the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90682, 85 FR 83113
(December 16, 2020).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91294 (March 10,
2021), 86 FR 14508 (March 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \9\ provides that, after
initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180
days after the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed
rule change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 22, 2020. The 180th day after publication of the Notice is
March 21, 2021. The Commission is extending the time period for
approving or disapproving the proposal for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1, along with the comments
received on the proposal and the Exchange's response. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\10\
designates May 20, 2021 as the date by which the Commission shall
either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NASDAQ-2020-062) as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05994 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71686-71687]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2022-0011]

Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH): Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested persons to submit nominations for
membership on the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety
and Health (MACOSH).

DATES: Nominations for MACOSH membership must be submitted by January
13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations and supporting materials,
including attachments, electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov,
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for
submitting nominations.
    OSHA will post submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice, including personal information, in the public docket, which is
available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about
submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and
birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the public
docket are listed in the index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General information and technical inquiries: Ms. Amy Wangdahl,
Director, Office of Maritime and Agriculture, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) invites
interested persons to submit nominations for membership on MACOSH.

I. Background

    MACOSH was established by Section 7(d) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) to advise the
Secretary of Labor through the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) in formulating
maritime industry standards and regarding matters pertaining to the
administration of the OSH Act related to the maritime industry. MACOSH
is a non-discretionary advisory committee of indefinite duration (see
section 3510 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 (Pub. L.
116-92)).
    MACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), its implementing regulations (41 CFR
parts 101-6 and 102-3), and OSHA's regulations on Advisory Committees
(29 CFR part 1912). Pursuant to FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2, 14(b)(2)), the
MACOSH charter must be renewed every two years.
    The Committee meets approximately two times per year. Committee
members serve without compensation, but OSHA provides travel and per
diem expenses. Members serve a two-year term, which begins from the
date of appointment by the Secretary of Labor. The current MACOSH
membership will expire on April 12, 2023.

II. MACOSH Membership

    MACOSH consists of not more than 15 members appointed by the
Secretary of Labor. The agency seeks committed members who have a
strong interest in the safety and health of workers in the maritime
industries. The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to equal
opportunity in the workplace. The Secretary of Labor will appoint
members to create a broad-based, balanced, and diverse committee
reflecting the shipyard, longshoring, and commercial fishing
industries, and representing affected interests such as employers,
employees, safety and health professional organizations, government
organizations with interests or activities related to the maritime
industry, academia, and the public.
    Nominations of new members, or resubmissions of current or former
members, will be accepted in all categories of membership. Interested
persons may nominate themselves or submit the name of another person
whom they believe to be interested in and qualified to serve on MACOSH.
Nominations may also be submitted by organizations from one of the
categories listed above (e.g., employer, employee, public, safety and
health professional organization, state safety and health agency,
academia).

III. Submission Requirements

    Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified
persons for membership on MACOSH. Nominations must include the
following information:
    (1) The nominee's name, contact information, and current employment
or position;
    (2) The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior
membership on MACOSH and other relevant organizations and associations;
    (3) The maritime industry interest (e.g., employer, employee,
public, safety and health professional organization, state safety and
health agency, academia) that the nominee is qualified to represent;

    (4) A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications
that addresses the nominee's suitability for membership; and
    (5) A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is
willing to regularly attend and participate in MACOSH meetings, and has
no conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on MACOSH.
    OSHA will conduct a basic background check of candidates before
their appointment to MACOSH. The background check will involve
accessing publicly available, internet-based sources.

IV. Member Selection

    The Secretary of Labor will select MACOSH members based on their
experience, knowledge, and competence in the field of occupational
safety and health, particularly in the maritime industries. Information
received through this nomination process, and other relevant sources of
information, will assist the Secretary of Labor in appointing members
to MACOSH. In selecting MACOSH members, the Secretary of Labor will
consider individuals nominated in response to this Federal Register
notice, as well as other qualified individuals. OSHA will publish a
list of MACOSH members in the Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 656, FACA, as amended (5
U.S.C. App. 2), the implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3),
Department of Labor Manual Series Chapter 1-900 (August 31, 2020),
OSHA's regulations on Advisory Committees (29 CFR part 1912), and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 17, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-25546 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P